Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2022

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Sven Melander

 * With 500+ words, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. There appears to be an adequate amount footnoting, but I have to AGF all the non-English refs. This wikibio is probably READY for RD, but I think it could use a round of copyediting (or two!) by a native English-speaker before going onto MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone through it and the English is proper. Someone needs to correct (and cite) the years in the Early life section that has a citation needed tag on it. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 02:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Completed.BabbaQ (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing looks good. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nancy Milford

 * Length at 500+ words Deployment of footnotes  (Though there is a deadlink). Formatting . This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Burkovich

 * Support Article is fine. Not amazing, nor terrible. Could use some work, but this article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Human genome sequencing

 * Comment The human genome article needs a few cites on some of the later sections. Also would want to see more summarizing the complete sequencing (eg how many encoding there are/etc.). But implicit support on the reported accomplishment. --M asem (t) 12:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I second that. It's a great science story, and a huge milestone. Tone 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've posted human genome sequencing stories before, e.g. Ancient Native American genome sequenced in 2014.  The achievement this time seems to be that the sequence is gapless but this was done in 2020 and announced in 2021, nine months ago.  This seems to be rather a technicality so any blurb should make the incremental nature of the achievement clear, rather than it being some wholly new thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the 2021 announcement, this is the publishing of the peer-reviewed paper that confirms the results. That's the bare minimum we want for posting any science-bases story. --M asem (t) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Peer review doesn't confirm results; it just sanity checks them (supposedly). Confirmation is done by repeating the experiment but science has been having a lot of trouble with this – see the replication crisis.  See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter for us. We want "new" science stories to be the result of publication from a peer-review journal, and not because of a press release from a university or news report months prior to that publication. Baring exceptional cases, we do not doubt the reliability of what is published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals like Science in this case. --M asem (t) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, WP:MEDRS advises that "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable..." And publication in a top-tier journal is no guarantee of correctness.  Quite the contrary, as "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ?Support? I was curious and tried to read through the wiki articles but things seem confusing: the Science article publishes a full genome missing chromosome Y, and CNN article says "the scientists were unable to sequence the Y chromosome originally. According to lead author, the team has managed to sequence the Y chromosome using a different set of cells", but that is NOT in the Science article.  Seems to be only in a linked database.  Just for context, the Science article says it reduced the number of issues by 80% and still seems to have 24 different "contig" which I am unsure if it refers to the number of chromosomes (which should be 23?) versus the 949 that existed before (i.e. now we have 24 chromosomes instead of 23 but previously the picture had 949 chromosomes?).  Perhaps someone can tweak the linked article for better clarity. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb is too vague. It is both confusing and inaccurate as written.  And I think the problem is "there isn't much news here", not "we need to re-write the blurb". User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moana Jackson
Comment In the past it was required for a bibliography section or in this case the Selected publications section to either have the ISBN numbers next to the listed works or references. If that's still the case, then this article needs that section sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not really sure myself what the requirements are, but I've added URLs for the journal/conference articles and an ISBN for the book chapter. The listings also include the information that would be included in a full reference anyway (date, volume, page etc). Hope this addresses the point. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice work on the article including the above referencing done by Chocmilk03 as requested by TDKR. Article is good to go. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The quoting is a bit much relative to the article's length. Try restricting the quotes to key phrases, instead of full sentences. Joofjoof (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fair comment! I'm reluctant to remove the block quote from Jacinda Ardern, so I've paraphrased some of the other quotes and also endeavoured to balance the blockquote out a bit by adding more details about his death/memorial service. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John T. Richardson

 * Support All sources live. Sourced and no stub. Grimes2 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support agree that it looks fine to me, have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have added a description to this article. Fully cited. This article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Censorship of Wikipedia

 * Oppose Technically covered by the ongoing, and we should avoid Wikipedia centric stories as ITN. --M asem (t) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Also "threatens to..." is 0.00% ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A demand to remove unspecified biased material, under penalty of financial hardship, is a common Edit Request here; warn Roskomnadzor twice, then block or topic ban it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russia has done this sort of thing before. Don't this instance rises to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Russia has not done this sort of thing before. How far back are we looking, exactly? I'd agree that it's track record is not good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom. Nothing has actually happened beyond a threat. This has all of one sentence of coverage in the target article. The event obviously does not merit its own article which is generally a showstopper for ITN nominations. And then we can go into significance, naval gazing and so on. Suggest Close as there is no chance of consensus developing to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for all the input, I did not realize these threats were so common. Makes me wonder why they haven't blocked it yet. It sounds like if they were to block it, that would probably be notable enough. Desertambition (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond Jimbo's comfort zone, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A bunch of pages already are blocked, mostly to do with drugs, suicide and autoerotic you-know-what InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret M. McGowan

 * Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. If her doctoral dissertation has a title, it would be worth including that in the prose.  Spencer T• C 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Turing Award

 * Oppose on quality Reads too much like faculty profile. Explains why it looks like a copyvio; I dont really think it is one, it's just the same bland style of listing of achievements.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so it should be written as an article not a CV/resume. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We have complaints about celebrity gossip but then they don't want a dry list of achievements either. There's no pleasing some people. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (in principle): Cn tags need to be fixed, is barely passable for the main page but would like see expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality In concurrence with Gotit here on the CNs. I'm not as worried about the content though. It does read a bit resume-like, but I think there is good reason for this. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added sources for all the remaining uncited rewards. The citations are largely press releases or list of recipients from the award-granting organizations; I tried to find third-party articles but couldn't find any, so hopefully these are fine. Please let me know if I did any of the citations wrong, as I'm fairly new to this.Morganfshirley (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is now acceptable. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. Changing to high-performance computing, since supercomputing is not linked in the article. --Tone 07:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Farthest known star discovered

 * Support I guess this is rather interesting and not at all usual, so I tentatively support it (though I still have qualms since this is just the farthest star, not the farthest object, but oh well). The article looks like its in a decent shape though. --5.44.170.26 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I love the science involved in this stuff, but I don't see what makes this discovery newsworthy. "Furthest known" simply means the next one we find that's a little further away will replace this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a maximum distance however. When we look into the sky we're seeing the past (because light takes time to travel to us), which means there's a maximum limit set by the Big Bang. There are a lot more subtle details, e.g. the universe wasn't transparent till so-called recombination so we will never see right to the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and there's another limit set by how fast the universe expands (see observable universe), etc. Hence the idea that "we'll find something a little further away" is contentious - there might not be another star further away. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Support. An important discovery. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This discovery is uncommon. It's nice to have a change of pace in the ITN right now. (PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Strong Support science is important and this is notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is major news. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is a 4-sentence stub. Stephen 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The story is good, just the article needs to be expanded to at least three time this length. Tone 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is 4 sentences long, which is way too short to be on the front page. If that is everything that is known about it, that's not enough for ITN, and if more is known, it should be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Question How often do we find a new farthest object? HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This one was said to likely be the farthest we may ever discover, because of a very particular alignment with gravitational lensing. So, quite exceptional. Tone 08:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Identifying this as a single star seems premature and the suggested image isn't clear. All they have is a faint smear of light with a high red shift.  They have been studying it for years but can't yet resolve it to determine whether it's a single star, a binary or more complex.   The James Webb telescope is expected to tell us more.  BTW, that instrument is starting to produce interesting images to test the alignment of its mirrors. (right).  At some point soon, we should publish the nominal "first".  That instrument will then produce lots more interesting images and we'll be spoilt for choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - As OA of the WHL0137-LS article, I also consider the discovery of star WHL0137-LS major news - my own related published comments in The New York Times is here if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a stub, so needs to be expanded before being listed on ITN. Right now it doesn't meet article quality requirements. No matter how many people post support here, it won't be posted unless significantly expanded. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and others - Yes - *entirely* agree - article has now been a bit more expanded with further text - further expansion is ongoing currently - additional help in expanding the article from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is not lengthy enough; also, at this point in time, 'furthest known' essentially means 'until we find another further one', which doesn't really feel "in the news". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait – A 220-word stub, of which 60 are devoted to its name and "astrophysical implications." Scant RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, major news and coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Banedon (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not a stub anymore. Reliable sources (as one would expect for a scientific subject). Grimes2 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lenght now is passable. I'll wait for to remove the "working" tag first, though. Ping me when ready. --Tone 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Article now weighs in at 248 words, of which 60 go to name and "astrophysical implications," leaving 180 words of description. Still stub territory. Also note that NASA says further details "are forthcoming." – Sca (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Length looks good now. Article is referenced as well Sherenk1 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - and others - rm  template - WHL0137-LS article now seems ok afaik - at least for starters - more later of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. I think all key findings are now in the article, without getting too technical. I'll go with the name, not the designation, because it just looks prettier. --Tone 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Still looks like a rush job. Currently the blurb and lead say that it's an "individual star" while the body says that this remains to be determined by the James Webb telescope.  It's the usual process of hype in which a discovery is given the interpretation most likely to garner headlines. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per Andrew - After going through the article - it looks more like a RD standard than an ITN standard. Many support !votes are also not standard (e.g. "major news and coverage", "this is major news", or straight up nothing at all.) I would suggest Pulling and continuing consensus. As far as I am aware, WP !votes are not meant to be a numbers game - it is a general consensus amongst editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull as summed up by two posts above. The blurb is questionable and the article is barely more than a stub still. We are allowed to wait more than 12 hours before posting something... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from  who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's barely a start class article, a clear violation of article quality guidelines. I hope anither admin will pull this if you won't, as we shouldn't be surrendering article quality for haste. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support - per the nine other supports. No, I'm not vote counting. The discovery is of global interest and though still brief, is growing. I commend the posting admin for adding the blurb. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support - What a nice change of pace from our regularly scheduled disasters, human suffering and politicians winning elections. The discovery was published in Nature, and of course there are a bunch of uncertainty, but such is the nature of astronomy. If the nominator waited for JWST to look at it, I'm sure it would have been called stale. The article is brief, but in line with what is known.  Mel ma nn   17:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Still quite thin for ITN promotion – abut 250 words. To this user seems rather pro-science undue. (Consensus questionable.) But not in favor of pulling – that would be lame Pushmi-Pullya editing. (And BTW, we're not an online feature magazine and don't need a "change of pace" to sweeten the product.) – Sca (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical.  Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How very presumptuous of a mere adjective. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Article is short, but sufficiently covers what is known about the star and its discovery, without getting excessive technical. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While the article is short, it is comprehensive relative to what is currently known. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Exclamation Cool! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Exclamation sufficiently covers the star and its discovery. Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Exclamation Love to see science on ITN! Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Carroll

 * Support Big news. Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Parker

 * Support Sourced. Quality sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Short but well sourced. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) MONUSCO helicopter crash

 * Oppose we general do not post military crashes with those killed in the line of duty. --M asem (t) 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it isn't important enough for ITN. Even if proven to be a shootdown, its death toll is in single figures & all those killed were military personnel on duty, doing an inherently dangerous job. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality Beyond notability concerns, which could be arguable, the article is VERY light at the moment and includes mostly empty sections. The article will need to be improved before we can even debate notability and impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous posts. Article narrative text is a 145-word stub, plus 90 words of background & reax. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above Oppose !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joyce Fairbairn

 * Posted Stephen 05:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara Suleri Goodyear

 * Stale – death on March 20 was actually announced two days later by Yale University and The Times of India (both being reliable sources). Move to close the nom as stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are going with March 22 as the reported date then that's still within the 7 day window, at least for a few hours? The article looks fine, quality wise. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Serhiy Kot

 * Comment One cn tag added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a ref for it, and five other facts on the way, because I can't really search in a language with different character set. There are about ten more facts in the same ref, - still hoping for a native speaker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No issues, minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Grimes2. Nothing big, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeff Carson

 * Not ready Several cn. Can't find ref for I Fly Proud. Recommend delete. Discography needs some sources. Grimes2 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mostly ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 30+ edits already on the refs, Grimes2? I'm listing you as an updater for this nom. Thank you for your hard work. --PFHLai (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose article contains blatant copyvio: the image is not freely licenced at all. We shouldn't post articles with any copyvios in them, which includes copyvio images. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Image removed by Stephen and biography section is cleaned now. Grimes2 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is cited and the copyvio image has been removed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine now, marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All issues with the article have now been fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugene Melnyk

 * Support. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining? I apologize for nitpicking, but ITN really tries to avoid unexplained !votes (such as yours). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Not ready Removed dead refs and added 2 cn, otherwise refs ok. Size ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support cn's . ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Still has cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems all have been fixed. The Kip (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Alex-h (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: One more CN tag, then this should be good to go. cc:  Spencer T• C 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Fixed remaining CN tags, should be ready to go now. Article could be more comprehensive, but it should meet RD standards. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Martin Pope

 * Support in principle, Strong Oppose per quality The article NEEDS citations. It's a very big shame that such an important man has an article of such poor quality. :( Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:56 (UTC)
 * All RDs are support in principle.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The bullet list formatting looks like a CV. It should be converted to prose. Joofjoof (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 94th Academy Awards

 * Let's get it out of the way first: yes or no to including Will Smith and Chris rock in a blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That's a minor controversy, if it was a controversy. --M asem (t) 03:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we have something about the winners in prose updates then? Will Smith won Best Actor afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The winners were already selected way before the show, and from what I saw, it seemed to be taken all in humorous jest (audience was laughing throughout). Now, if that becomes of serious controversy over the next few days, that might be something to add, but that's crystal balling to assume it will be needed to add now, given this article currently actually has updated ceremony information (presenters, and even mention of this event). --M asem (t) 03:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say was that the article treats the confrontation as a big deal, it's the last update for the ceremony. There should be prose about who won in the article, just like sports articles need to have prose about the game, not just tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede should probably be updated to try to summarize the winners, though as no single film really away with wins, this probably would need to be sustinct. As for prose in the body, this is rarely done as the table does this, though if there is commentary about notable wins (for example, Parasite being the first foreign language film to win Best Picture in 2019) that should be added, but that likely will be information that will develop in the next couple of days from secondary coverage and not immediately available now. Same with other aspects of the broadcast (viewership, commentary on the quality, etc.) Compared to other broadcast award articles like the Grammys, this is in very much ready state (in terms of content, haven't validated sourcing) for posting. --M asem (t) 04:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t have to be world-changing to be an interesting event that has never happened before and has high quality sources… It’s the most talked about aspect of the whole show. Trillfendi (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A note on the first blurb, given that Dune won 6 awards, it seems odd to call out CODA (which is an initialism so that's the proper style)'s 3 wins. If one of those was for best director, sure, we've done in the past. --M asem (t) 03:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We could tack on, and Dune wins six. Only a few extra words. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding alt2 based on the Deadline article, the first time a film from a streaming service (Apple TV, Netflix, etc.) won Best Picture. --M asem (t) 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1 (or blurb 3 if it specifies that CODA wasn't made by a streaming service) - Technically CODA wasn't produced by a streaming service. It was distributed by a streaming service. Tube·of·Light 04:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources that are calling CODA the first win for a streaming service are not appearing to make that distinction. In fact, in considering when they look at studio win counts, they are looking at distributor, not production side. --M asem (t) 12:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2019 comment In 2019, the Best Picture (Green Book) was blurbed along with the movie with most awards (Bohemian Rhapsody), while the best actor was pictured (Malek from Bohemian).—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added similar as ALTIII.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb 3 with additonal mention of Will Smith's best actor win/incident with Chris Rock, as it is appearing to overshadow the rest of the event. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3. I think it's important to mention the film that won the most awards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting alt3. Dune won six, not four. --Tone 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Image? Should there be an image for the blurb? We could put CODA writer and director Sian Heder, except she didn't win Best Director. Or CODA Troy Kotsur for Best Supporting Actor? I'm not sure who would be posted for Dune, as it didn't win the more prominent awards like best actor/actress/director. Or no image?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No image seems better to me, as there's not a clearly, directly relevant image for this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we go with an image, Troy Kotsur is a good choice, this time the distribution of awards was rather interesting. Tone 09:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Contrary to the general opinion here, in Britain the BBC regarded the Will Smith incident as being of world importance. It was first headline on the radio news this morning, displacing Ukraine. Thincat (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As Smith won best actor, it would work to use him for the picture so we could mention the fracas in the caption. I have added a suggestion to the nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole thing with Smith and Rock is, at least right now, in the realm of celebrity gossip, just stuff that happened (nearly) live to a world audience. We should not be giving it any additional coverage to overshadow the ITNR stuff. --M asem (t) 12:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not something to mention in the ITN box. Tone 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently listening to an extensive item about this on the BBC's World at One. This is what's in the news, not CODA or Dune.  See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, we do not follow to the letter what are the headlining topics in the news, as we are not a news ticker. Second, we're not censoring it - the event is well covered on the ceremony's page - but it is the type of thing that falls under WP:NOT - it happened, there's a lot of talking-heads aftermath so far but as I've read, no charges are going to be filed, and the Academy's statement says nothing about any action against Smith, so anything more is just rumormongering that we should not cover in excessive depth, and certainly not as an ITN item. --M asem (t) 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - There was an awards show in the middle of this, but people seem to not be focusing on that. That said, if we posted the Smith-Rock assault as its own ITN item without mentioning the awards show, we'd probably be laughed out of the room. The only reason that particular item of the story is notable is because it took place in a highly public setting with lots of TV cameras and social media feeds. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't be posting anything related to the Academy Awards at all since it's a non-story story, but that's neither here nor there. --WaltCip- (talk)  12:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, the awards show is ITNR, and so that's what we should post (and have done). If people want to add the slap onto ITN, then that would need a clear consensus to do so. I would be against it, as it's only well-covered because it happened at a notable event. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously considering mentioning the Will Smith incident in the blurb? Main Page is not for this sort of thing and it's not a gossip journal. It's anecdotal, however much of a headline it may have made. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just listened to a further extensive analysis of this in the BBC's PM programme. It was quite amusing to hear progressive pundits wrestle with this moral conundrum as they agonise about the forming consensus.  And they still weren't talking about Dune or CODA.  Pretending that this didn't happen is pathetic – a feeble ducking of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can go literally anywhere else to hear about this story. You don't have to go here. WaltCip- (talk)  17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stressing again why we are not a news ticket, and instead focus on stories of long term encyclopedic value rather than these short term celebrity gossip news that sadly dominate 24/7 news cycles. --M asem (t) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I led with Smith/Rock last night because it didn't take a crystal ball to see how that slap would dominate the narrative today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Las Tinajas massacre
Support because it's important enough due to its death toll. Though the article is short, it's good enough. Had this happened in the US or Europe, it'd be one of the world's biggest news stories of the week & would have been created, nominated & posted within 24 hours. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now. Article is not comprehensive enough, barely contains more information than the blurb would.  Needs additional expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What specifically is missing from it? Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per quality. This doesn't feel ITN ready. There's just so little meat in the article that it's basically bare bones. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a note on the further arrests. I think the death toll makes it relevant enough for the front page. Sheila1988 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Maltese general election

 * More or less ready to post when I see some more support. Tone 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Done. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks fine, elections are ITNR. The image is possibly not correctly licenced (I doubt it's their own work), but that shouldn't hold up the nomination from being posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Add picture of Abela, highest article with available picture. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the validity of the licence of the image File:Pm robert abela malta 21022020.jpg. It's clearly a professional image, but has been uploaded as "own work". Unless it has a correct licence added, it is a copyvio, and we shouldn't be posting copyvios to the main page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joseph. I hadn't noticed the suspicious license of the picture. And there is no quality photo of Abela on Commons despite this one, for now. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The pic is now tagged for speedy deletion at WCommons. I am removing it from this ITN/C page. --PFHLai (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Anybody able to find a replacement image for Abela? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just added the only one possible, but frankly it's far from the best. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another one is available, although he has a mask on. here Vacant0 (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lee Koppelman

 * Not ready I've added cn tags to two whole paragraphs that need citing. Please fix. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many dead refs. Grimes2 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ITNCRIT: References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to pqasb.pqarchiver.com URLs? I don't have. Grimes2 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose lots more sources needed, as well as the bare URL issue (which WP:REFILL doesn't seem to be able to fix easily for me :. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I should have looked at the article more closely. It looks like it may need more work than I thought. Thriley (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arthur Riggs (geneticist)

 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Jeck

 * Support Article is fully cited, although some more information could be useful for his early life. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Any more that can be added? Kinda on the borderline for me with 2 full paragraphs instead of the minimum 3, but there's not really a reason that I can see to split the career section into 2 paragraphs just for the sake of having 3. Additionally, there's info in the introduction (e.g. use of turntables, looping devices) that doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body-- potentially that's where we can have some additional info added.  Spencer T• C 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted I split that big paragraph in two. The article is short, but long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is sufficient, but most of the lead is no summary and should be moved to body. Grimes2 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dirck Halstead

 * Support No cn/orange tags to be seen. Article is long enough. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Could be stronger if his Personal life, Career and Awards were separated somehow; an American photojournalist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the concerns above look somewhat fixed, sufficient article for RD, well referenced Josey Wales Parley 20:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all has changed since I complained. There's still career in the middle of "Biography" and awards lumped into "Career". That's not to complain further, though, I still weakly support it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Organization needs improvement. Why is there a "Biography" section in a biography.  Redundant.  And one's career is part of a biography, but it's made a separate section somehow.  And the "Biography" contains work with Life and UPI that seem part of his career.  Also seems contrary to MOS:BLPCHRONO: —Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * fixed by restoring the most recent version that I edited. Subsequent edits by other editors was what led to the "Biography" section and non-chronological order being used. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my opp.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Alele-Williams

 * Not ready Awards and Publications sections still have CN tags. Please fix them! Support I have fixed the WP:CITE issues. Article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Alex-h (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, well referenced Josey Wales Parley 20:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taylor Hawkins

 * Support Detailed article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I've had a chance to read his bio, most of the section about the Foo Fighters is unsourced.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is sourced at Foo Fighters and The Colour and the Shape, so have copied across. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Martin!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Article has several [good] sources. Vida0007 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looking ready for RD now Josey Wales Parley 11:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - The tag has an accompanying comment questioning it, so I'll assume it is not "information challenged or likely to be challenged". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Source was added two minutes later. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support Article is detailed and no cn tags there. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Fripp

 * Support Article is alright. No cn tags/ anything to complain about, but it could still use some work. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – two sentences are unsourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just thrown in two {cn} tags. I hope they are the same two spots found by Bloom6132. --PFHLai (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and I have fixed the unsourced sentence problem. I suppose the article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that has made some edits there, too. Does  want to give this a second look, please? --PFHLai (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both citation needed tags now addressed. However, there may be concerns with copyright violations.  While the first website (published shortly after his death) is probably WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, I'm not so sure about the second site from the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame (38.7% similarity – ref 2 in article), even when accounting for WP:LIMITED. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Bloom6132. Better now, I hope? --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Length (800+ words) Use of footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dagny Carlsson

 * Support article is well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   18:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) North Korea ICBM launch

 * Oppose The article says that there were test launches in Jan and earlier in March so this seems to be an ongoing program. And it hasn't been updated with the latest launch yet.  I think we'd need to see some significant diplomatic consequence to run this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, you shouldn't have said it was an ongoing problem. Now someone will take it upon themself, maybe in a few days, to try to add it to ongoing.../s Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose North Korea has launched missiles and still is. I do not think there being a gap between them is all that notable from an ITN prospective. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Next to India accidentally hitting Pakistan, a state intentionally hitting water again seems like a miss, ping me if innocent whales partially wash up. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * could you stop calling me out? thx Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Are you the IP/OP, were you raised part whale or haven't you stopped beating the ocean? Anyway, anytime, buddy! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say the second one, if putting on the pounds constitutes being 'raised part whale', in your book. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose How many ICBMs do the US and the NATO launch every year? What makes DPRK so different? Just that their regime is more openly oligarchic/despotic? 5.44.170.26 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - They've been trying to provoke for the last month or so, since Russia invaded Ukraine. Heaven knows why, but this is actual saber-rattling.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a test, to see how things work, practice making perfect and such. When North Korea wants to show off or antagonize, it's typically very public and sensational about it, even legit poetic at times. Here, quite lowkey, the supposed target(s) had to hear about it from the neighbours. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russell Kerr (choreographer)

 * Support Nothing of notice to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Fine. Well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barrington Patterson

 * Still two cn's to resolve. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I resolved the remaining CNs and removed one short sentence that I couldn't find a source for, should be ok for RD now ? Josey Wales Parley 22:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * pinging them so they can see this. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve Wilhite

 * Support Wow. We'll never be able to truely tell how it's pronounced now... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tagged one line that needs a citation. Its close otherwise --M asem (t) 01:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that the whole paragraph is suspect - it was added by User:Eludom with a note that says Added information about Steve's work from personal memories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Wilhite&diff=prev&oldid=549153798), but of course this could be also explained by the fact that offline research is necessary to uncover whether this happened or not.
 * I also changed the bare NPR link into the Cite news template but that's a rather uncontroversial one. - 2001:4453:5CD:8800:E4FC:7645:951D:2C66 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but abbreviations follow the phonetics of the expanded term, so regardless of his opinion, gif has a hard 'g', like 'graphic' ;) -  Floydian  τ ¢ 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell that to "JPEG" and all the other abbreviations that don't adhere to this line of reasoning. :p rawmustard (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks sufficient to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a {cn} tag on things he worked on Before working with CompuServe Information Manager, ... Most notable were ... "BTOOLS" to support BLISS programming. Please add more REFs to that paragraph. --PFHLai (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paragraph; as the IP points out it's based on personal memories so OR. I've never really participated in ITN/RD before so if this isn't allowed feel free to revert. I couldn't locate any RSes at all mentioning it. There are some recent mentions in non-RSes that are almost certainly a case of citogenesis. ev iolite   (talk)  17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for removing questionable contents. Unverifieable materials must be removed. However, the article has less than 300 words left. Is there anything else to write about him to make his wikibio longer than a stub, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Short, but sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD: Madeleine Albright

 * Support Looks fine.   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support A very notable person; her death would be very important to note. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Very notable person. Perhaps even a blurb?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A big name, mostly referenced. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, notable figure with a solid article. AviationFreak💬 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent depth of coverage of her career. rawmustard (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable prominent person.--TheDutchViewer (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on quality, and concur with others above about high prominence. Blurb or not depends on one's threshold, but Secretary of State of the U.S. is arguably a bigger deal than e.g. president of a small island nation. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not Chrisclear (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit! But objectively, the US State Department has 273 (overt) nodes worldwide, only three behind China's foreign ministry. Are there even 273 other recognized states? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia recognizes 208. For contrast, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration is small enough to be run by the President of Kiribati. Most Oceanic nations don't even have stubs for their diplomatic systems and Lionel Aingimea has done absolutely nothing of note since becoming president. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Support blurb. Major figure. Shaped the US foreign policy for decades (including the events that are happenign now). Plus she's the first woman on the job.    5.44.170.26 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That mostly goes for every secretary of state/foreign minister/equivalent or UN ambassador. What sets this one apart, even just among former Western ones? If the death itself is nothing special, the career should be exceptionally fine for a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The list posted first linked below by InedibleHulk suggests that Albright was the 40th woman in the job, not the first. So hardly a trailblazer. Chrisclear (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - almost there but small improvements needed with two citations to be found, and also the bibliography could do with ISBNs to verify the existence of the books. Good to go after that, but oppose blurb obviously. Being a household name (for those of a certain age) doesn't mean you're automatically transformative. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , citation tags all resolved, bibliography by adding ISBNs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Household name + the first in a globally-important job gets it over the hump for me. valereee (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Globally speaking, she was 40th (though yes, some of those really seem unimportant). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not a head of government, not a head of state, not sufficiently important to deserve a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (RD) Solid biography, well sourced now Josey Wales Parley 21:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. = paul2520 💬 21:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted RD. I'm happy with the quality now. I guess in theory blurb discussion can continue, but I oppose it myself and it seems unlikely consensus will develop. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Not as notable as Colin Powell, who wasn't posted, which does not prove Albright should not, but it's a hurdle to clear. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we not do a "pile-on" here? Consensus is fairly clear.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Despite what some (male) editors may tend to think, women who break glass ceilings are inherently made more notable for having done so. The arguments about whether or not Secretaries of State, or whether or not she should be posted if some other man who served in Cabinet wasn’t, reduce the significance of her accomplishments as a woman trailblazer. She is the first woman to serve as Secretary of State and a rare female household name in American politics. Of course her death merits a blurb. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The list posted first linked above by InedibleHulk suggests that Albright was the 40th woman in the job, not the first. So hardly a trailblazer. The article to which I linked suggests that this particular glass ceiling was first broken by Ana Pauker in 1947, almost 50 years before Albright was appointed to the position. Chrisclear (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As is perhaps clear to most readers, Flipandflopped was referring to Albright as the first woman to serve as United States Secretary of State. And that is significant for a country as globally significant as the United States, but especially for the English Wikipedia, where 40% of its readers hail from the US. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 03:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it may be significant to that one particular country, but Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, and it's not the job of ITN to pander to readers of one country. Chrisclear (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb We posted RBG as a blurb, we should post Albright as well. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 03:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What or who is "RGB"? I presume you're not referring to the colour model? Chrisclear (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RBG, not RGB. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider both women at equal level and their passing equally newsworthy. However the big difference is that RBG passed when still in office and therefore her passing had major political consequences. 185.125.224.45 (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb She's important deciding figure in history (Bosnian War, removal of Boutros-Boutros Ghali, and for being so highly placed a woman in American politics. Zelkia1101 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb We should evaluate notability of persons who weren't heads of state on the merits of their achievements while serving the term, not because of being the first person in something or being a representative of a specific country. In this particular case, her greatest achievements are advocating wars, war profiteering and ethnic hatred. That's not what we want for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's not our job to decide whether someone has been "good" or "bad", just whether they were particularly noteworthy. Regards So  Why  08:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think she's particularly noteworthy for a blurb, and the article doesn't seem to convince otherwise. There's a large section on controversies in which she was involved, with some of them being really disgusting and embarrassing for a foreign minister. If she's a highly placed woman in American politics for what she's done during her term, then it's clear that the United States have radically different moral principles than any normal country in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This right here. Being the first for something or a household name is not sufficient for a blurb...it should be clearly demonstrated in article about their influence and legacy for why a blurb makes sense. --M asem (t) 14:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well WP:CSECTION exists and are what make bios look unecyclopedic on here (as opposed to other reference works). This is especially true for politicians and govt officials where in more cases than not controversies take up more space than the actual career, policies et al. Another reason to oppose the blurb, these are better well incorporated in the article itself. And other editors have already noted her significant achievements as well, fickle morality is hardly the shtick here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Poor actions are just as notable as good ones. Posting a blurb is not a matter of "supporting" the person or event named in the blurb. If Putin died suddenly during this war would we not post it because of his violations of international law and war crimes? That to me is clear-cut notability, which is what ITN is based in (in conjunction with coverage, which usually goes hand in hand with said notability). DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a very bad comparison. Putin is a current head of state and his article is detailed enough so that the reader can easily recognise his notability (not to mention that there are even sub-articles on his life). Albright isn’t a head of state (current or former), so we need to evaluate notability based on what is written in her article, which doesn’t contain anything outstanding compared to the other office-holders other than the controversies. That’s not for a blurb. You’re welcome to expand the article with missing information which really speaks to her notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Following precedent from Powell who was and has been more notable, no need to turn back on that just due to further subcategorization. Regardless of where the readers come from (as some have argued above), that should not overlook the merits of individual scrutiny for ITN and I doubt we would be even discussing this if it was another foreign secretary/minister (China, Russia, UK for e.g.). Though I would've supported blurbing Powell this is not it and RD suffices here/was created for this specific purpose. Gotitbro (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And for all the discussion here, no one has yet proposed the blurb itself. Gotitbro (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nationality, job description, Name, age at death. A bot could do these. A bot should do these! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can do better than drab blurbs then. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Powell didn't get a blurb and I think we should follow that rule (Per Gotitbro). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not every American Secretary of State needs to have a blurb. If they weren't American, they wouldn't be considered. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb "First X to do X" creates far to large a net for our purposes here. We must be more selective; either with less qualifications (first woman SoS anywhere, first woman in any US cabinet post) or with additional achievements. Also, while I support some bias towards anglophone countries, this give too much weight to it happening in the US.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb – Very, very widely covered, and justly so.      Madeline Albright was 'transformative' not only by being the first woman U.S. secretary of state, but also for her sagacity, firmness and long-term influence. As the BBC notes, Albright oversaw the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO, and pushed for intervention to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. She was obviously not "every American secretary of state." I count the votes (including mine and Amakuru's) as 17-8 in favor. This should be posted to ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop pushing this by marking as "needing attention". It only needs admin attention if it has a consensus to post, or a consensus not to post. Right now it has neither. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, your counting is wrong. Most of the initial "support" votes are clearly a support for the RD, as the blurb was mentioned after they voted. Claiming they are supports for the blurb is a lie. It's about 50/50 on actual votes for the blurb (rather than the RD). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop making anti-American comments. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not because she's American, it's because I don't believe she's notable enough, despite everything you posted above. And there clearly isn't a consensus to post. She wasn't a head of state, we usually only post heads of state. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPC WP:AGF It should have been nominated for a blurb in the first place. Sca (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it wasn't, so you should count not votes for an RD as a vote for a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She "oversaw" those NATO additions the same way all concerned diplomats did, by looking on and offering their opinions. Javier Solana "wore the pants" in this alliance, as Secretary General. He is not a big name to viewers like us, but by Neptune, he tried his best. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it was her and the US policy under her that pushed for NATO expansions, other 'figures' were well that only. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how Poland remembers it. Krzysztof Skubiszewski "paid a visit", Manfred Wörner "opened the door", Solana formally invited and Albright just accepted the formal acceptance as a symbol of the meeting going down in Washington instead of Ottawa or Oslo. If any American deserves special applause, it's the congresspeople who legally allowed the US to get with the program. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per all above, especially for the arguments of TDKR, Joseph, GcG and Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The bar for blurbs should not be just high, it should be extremely high. For American political figures outside of former presidents the list is slim in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Sdkb "Secretary of State of the U.S. is arguably a bigger deal than e.g. president of a small island nation", Zelkia1101, and Sca. To what matters is not whether person X was 'good' or 'bad'. That is a completely subjective matter, and believing otherwise is a clear violation of WP:BIAS. While I do personally believe that advocating wars, war profiteering and ethnic hatred are truly terrible things, that does not stop one from being considerably noteworthy. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Based on actual impact (or controversy), does not stand out apart from other foreign ministers (I doubt any others would apart from Kissinger) and I don't see why being the first female foreign minister of a specific country should stand out when other countries already had elected female leaders before then (ie Thatcher, B Bhutto, Golda Meir, Indira Nehru/Gandhi etc). And Ruth Bader Ginsburg should never have been blurbed, that was an ILIKEIT stampede, and agree with Joseph that Sca's interpretation of the floor/room is absurd Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RBG was a noteworthy person before her death, but her death happening when it did had a bigger impact on American government than most general elections do on their respective countries. Had she lived 5 more months, she probably would not have been blurbed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I wasn't nearly as active on here when she died as opposed to now, but even then, it all depends on the context of RBG's death. The timing allowed Senate Republicans to push Amy Coney Barrett into her seat and give the conservatives a supermajority on the Supreme Court. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was notable because it was very close to the elections that year and the fact that there were eight members on the court during a lot of notable cases at this time. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While people do point out systematic bias as regards to blurbs in some cases, the readers' and the encyclopedia's Anglophone leanings can't entirely be overlooked (though scrutiny should always exist and be higher for individuals on there). Ginsburg's case and notability at the time was I think, in retrospect, well established even though I had opposed it at the time. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb When there are debates over whether to blurb all heads of state, secretaries of state shouldn't make the cut. And I can't see anything else that would qualify Albright for a blurb, as important as she was in her day. Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can certainly think of US state secretaries who would qualify for a blurb, Kerry and Clinton for e.g. (though they are notable for things other than that as well), Powell should've as well IMO. But I am not seeing the significance here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Abel Prize

 * Comment Updated the nomination blurb to parallel (the most recent year when there was a sole awardee). — MarkH21talk 19:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This checks out fine. The alt blurb seems best as it's more succinct. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and while not required, it would be nice to find a means to explain his topology work to a practical application or area of application. --M asem (t) 01:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When accepting a previous prize, he aspired to a practical application of particular interest to ITN: "We want to know if these tools applied numerically might successfully predict where hurricanes hit a populated coastline". Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb ITNR and the article looks good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good, have marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Joseph and Andrew. Article and blurb both look good. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I agree with Alsoriano and Andrew regarding the altblurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting alt. --Tone 11:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks but what about the picture, please? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Somalia attacks

 * Support - but fix the disambiguation and change "48 people" to "at least 48 people" as that number only applies to the suicide bombings; the death tolls of the other attacks appear unclear. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. These attacks are easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd have been created, nominated & posted within hours of it having happened. Alt blurb because the perpetrator & cities are important enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Heavy death toll, per Jim Michael and article is in good shape. Tragic event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment ALT1 seems incorrect. Al-Shabaab has claimed responsibility, not the "Islamic State". <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 09:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohammad Reyshahri

 * Support A little short but looks sufficient. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elspeth Howe

 *  Weak support Borderline article, size ok. Could need one or two additional references. Grimes2 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miriam Dell
Support Solid short adequate article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Barrise

 * Support Looks ready to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elnardo Webster (basketball)

 * Support decent article, referenced where it should be Josey Wales Parley 21:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: There are a number of items in the infobox (and in the template at the bottom of the wikipage) that are not mentioned in the prose, i.e., junior college, Barons in 1972-1973 and again in 1975-1976, 1973 CBA championship, Spain, top scorer in Italy. Please expand coverage, if these things in the infobox are real. --PFHLai (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a ref verifying his junior college years at WCJC. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any WP:RS verifying the other info, which I have now hidden.  Hope that's alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Madden (designer)

 * Support article seems to be in good condition.  Hamza Ali Shah   11:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Satis, but needs some additional categories. Grimes2 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ 2 added. Grimes2 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Hamza. However since she died so long ago maybe not. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 12:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bloom6132, you don't need to post that bit about the "provable gap" anymore. The policy was changed after that comment was made, and only date of announcement is considered.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Corsica unrest

 * Preliminary Comment Should reword "murder" before conviction, presume innocence and acknowledge the protests started before he died, possibly include a casualty count. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the spark and latest flareup both precede the Fukushima earthquake, our oldest blurb; maybe Ongoing or an RD blurb? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yvan Colonna is orange tagged for updates and needs more sources. The latest events listed on 2022 Corsica unrest are from 13 March, and I don't see that there is enough news coverage (then or now) to justify a posting to ITN even if article issues are resolved. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Coverage sparse, situation murky but may bear watching as Macron said Corsican autonomy could be discussed. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We should move forward with the RD, but Yvan Colonna is not sufficient to support an RD blurb. Current events do not support a blurb on the unrest.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yvan Colonna is orange-tagged, so article quality would need to be fixed before this meets the standards for being posted at RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry...move forward meaning that is a thing that we can reasonably pursue, not that it is ready at the moment.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, it is better to wait and see which way the situation goes. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for now I don't think it's ITN-worthy enough, so it's best to wait and see where this all goes. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support «In a single night of rioting in Corsica's second-biggest city, Bastia, on 13 March, some 67 people were injured, 44 of them police officers.» - strikes me as a major event, don't you think? I'm actually surprised MSM reported on this at all 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell (and as far as the article says), that was the only night of rioting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it was over a week ago. Sca (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not the only night, rioting had been occurring for several days. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/france-may-offer-corsica-autonomy-struggles-quell-protests) a week ago talks about an extended period of rioting. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Corsica gaining independence will certainly make the ticker, but the current event in the process of that will not. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should be an RD nom, but quality is not there yet.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a separate RD nom below.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barely seems to be registering a pulse on French media itself (which is dominated by Ukraine), nor am I seeing an impact beyond the regional level in France with only injuries in the unrest/riots reported of so far. Gotitbro (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 12:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Colonna even notable under a BLP1E/BLPCRIME consideration? As the culprit in the assasssination, there's not much more that appears to be said about them, and thus I'd have expected that to have be a redirect to Claude Érignac (the person they assassinated). --M asem (t) 12:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Colonna is a national hero in Corsica, especially among Corsican nationalists. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is severely lacking that information then, if this is being considered for an RD. --M asem (t) 13:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – On March 22, Macron calls for calm. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let him eat cake! The real autonomy talk is expected to begin next month, possibly end by Christmas. In the meantime, tensions could therefore remain "simmering" (to some degree), so I might support Ongoing once the clock formally starts ticking. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosa Gómez de Mejía

 * Support It's alright. Not amazing by any standards, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yvan Colonna

 * Support because it meets RD requirements. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In an article of 7 paragraphs, two and a half of them are unreferenced. Stephen 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged for needing an update, and also needs lots more references. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks passable for an RD. Update tag is there but shouldn't be a holdover for this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing a single cn tag which should be fixed, per the nom above more on the unrest in the bio would also serve well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's way more places where citations are needed (just because there isn't a cn tag, it doesn't mean that text can be unsourced). Adding cn tags now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Le Monde covered the text but wasn't inline cited, fixed for those paras. Gotitbro (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tagging. Everything appears to be covered now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks sufficient.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but one cn tag remains. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unreferenced materials about his father have been moved out of the intro and into the Early life section with a {cn} tag added there. Please add REFs there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai Added.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks passable for an RD now. Alex-h (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

 * Wait – Article still in the process of development. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 09:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait there is need to expand this article Support (Clearly is notable event and they are already expand)  HurricaneEdgar    09:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - from on site footage there are unlikely to be survivors. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Modified blurb for now. There should be 132 people on board, according to latest news. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Many Details are not yet known. We need to wait for more info. My condolences to the victims and people involved.PatrickChiao (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because over 100 people were killed, so it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Information is still uncertain. It has been reported that all 133 people have died. (PenangLion (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC))
 * Support article has structure and os well-referenced. Almost certainly no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Over 100 people killed; notable enough, and the article is in good shape. RIP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 12:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Clearly will be posted but lets get those CN tags cleared up and make sure they have confirmed the deaths. --M asem (t) 12:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have seen the last-seconds footage of the flight. It was basically a vertical drop. Hardly would there be any survivors. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready The article lacks information on the outcome of the crash, that is, how many passengers survived and how many were killed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This should tell you all you need to know. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Article now states presumed no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters quotes unnamed "media" saying "there was no sign of survivors." – Sca (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The only remaining doubt might be on the numbers of passenger or crew (but it seems there is none). It is 200% obvious that no-one could have survived that impact. It seems unlikely that even the black boxes could have survived. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, claim of it being largest disaster is unsourced (and I assume unverifiable, until actual death numbers are released). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - one claim unsourced, that is, about the aircraft being based in Kunming.  Gerald WL  12:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Support ITN-wise, looks good.  Gerald  WL  13:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Once death toll is confirmed. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Major aviation disaster. Casualties confirmed. Article looks good, hopefully would be expanded further. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Image in this nomination should be updated to the one in the article infobox. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or the better one on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, either of those is way better than the image in this nomination. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk page image would be a better option. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adriana Hoffmann

 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Add cause of death if availiable. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga

 * Support Barely long enough but Start class. Fully sourced and looks ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose similar to the Bangladesh former president below, needs more content on what he actually did in charge. Without that, it just looks like a CV of roles. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good and sufficiently referenced. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage; CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 22:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ and Ammarpad. Not great article, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Pakistani political crises

 * Wait There is said to be a vote that might happen around March 28, but until that happens, this is a speculative story. --M asem (t) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait too soon, but obviously blurb if the leader of 150 million people is ousted. The fact that his British equivalent has been holding on for months now despite similar opposition means that I can't support mere speculation. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per WP:CRYSTAL.  HurricaneEdgar    17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until something actually happens. If something happens in future, remominate it then with an NPOV blurb suggestion (the current blurb is massively POV, everything after the "due to" is unencyclopedic opinions). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait If a vote of no confidence is successful (which is what will raise it to ITN) there will likely be a change in the head of government which will be WP:ITNR on its own and both can be tackled in a single blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait if the no confidence motion is successful then post but it would be WP:CRYSTAL if posted now.  Hamza Ali Shah   21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michail Jurowski

 * Where are we three days later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing seems perfectly fine, see no issues for posting. --M asem (t) 14:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Shahabuddin Ahmed

 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs more sources and also some more text i.e. what did he actually do as President for 6 years? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Clayton (sportswriter)

 * Comment Some citations needed for his years (1975?) and role at Steel City Sports, and the nature of his work on radio networks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine now. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(Re-posted) 1915 Çanakkale Bridge

 * Comment could you provide any reliable source for verifiable?   HurricaneEdgar    09:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some English sources. Also, there are lots of news if you search in Turkish "çanakkale 1915 köprüsü". Joseph (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Length is huge for bridges, but the article is short and several sentences are stuck in the past tense. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but article needs an update, mostly for tense changes (everything says "will be"). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC
 * Support (by suspension cables) Tenses corrected. Is much longer than the Rialto Bridge, apparently! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. This is clearly a notable event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposing altblurb 2, Support altblurb 2 5.44.170.26 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt2 looks good, slightly tweaked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt3 if the problems in the article are dealt with, then I don’t see why we can’t post this.  Hamza Ali Shah   13:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2  in principle although the article *does* need some work. Article has been improved. Keep posted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do tell. Or do do, even. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose until improved. The article is missing expected coverage such as planning and construction history. Construction started in 2017, and surely in planning and development long before that, and yet its history starts at 2020? In my mind, this doesn't meet the minimally comprehensive requirement. When that's sorted, I'd support alt2. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle this is important enough for ITN, and the article is (almost) fully sourced, but reading the article it does feel incomplete. Hopefully it will get cleaned up in the next 12-24 hours and then posted. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 The article is sparse but there are no massive issues. A massive infrastructural achievement with wide RS coverage. BSMRD (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please add more REFs. There are still a couple of {cn} tags in this article. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just gone in and cleared the CN tags. Article could still use more actual content, but everything in it is now sourced. BSMRD (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. The concerns above have been addressed.  Sandstein   07:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have they? There's multiple remarks about length issues. Half of the blurb isn't even IN the article. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Pulled. As noted by multiple !voters above, the history section is incomplete at the moment and the objections haven't been dealt with yet. A good story once the article is ready and improved, but it isn't at present. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You Crazy Admins....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a bridge too far away. Sca (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more on the history, but the English language sources on history don't seem to say much more about it other than what's already here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-posted. Thanks for those updates, I think that's satisfactory now. Hopefully there are no further objections...  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-reposting support per . Not much more information we could possibly squeeze out of English language reliable sources. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur perhaps next time Sandstein could read the consensus and act on it, rather than supervoting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-reposting support. It's already been reposted but just doing a due diligence here and striking my oppose and saying that indeed it's minimally comprehensive now. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The ballyhooed bridge bounces back -- fortunately w/o the big blue sky. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Young

 * Support article is in decent shape. Much higher-profile than most U.S. Representatives; but probably not quite up to the level of deserving a blurb. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Elli. Article in good condition, although I could see an argument being made for a blurb. That'd probably be shot down, though. Also worth mentioning he was the longest incumbent House rep, serving since 1973. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 02:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also taken the opportunity to add some more sources. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 02:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This would definitely never make a blurb. Outside of his eccentricities and half-century tenure, he was not an especially prominent or well-known figure in politics, and his death really doesn't have ramifications considering there's an election this year (and it will probably not be that competitive). Nohomersryan (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole "blurb" or "not a blurb" thing has jumped the shark. Do we all remember when Bowie died and it was a major cultural moment in and of itself? Or when Mandela died and the world stopped to honor him? Those are blurbable deaths. Young was a rapscallion with longevity. I'd never suggest this for a blurb, and I nominated it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, a casual Bowie fan and guy who only knew Mandela's claim to fame in a nutshell, no. I remember other deaths feeling like that, one of which (off the top of my head) was blurbed. All entirely subjective, but yes, I'd put anyone I'd previously seen or read about over Don Young on the major figure list (I didn't even know his position existed). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The long tenures of Young and Ted Stevens certainly had long-term detrimental effects on Alaska's political depth chart. However, suggesting that this election won't be competitive is perhaps a little clueless, as this event changes everything.  The filing deadline for the primary and general elections is June 1, plus there will be a special election at approximately the same time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The generation of politicians who began their careers in the 1960s slowly but surely dying off. Article looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Against a blurb though, Don Young is not really known to anyone other than American political buffs outside of the US. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem: There is not a single footnote in #Committee assignments. #Caucus memberships needs more footnotes, too. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These are facts though. Are they likely to be WP:CHALLENGED? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A list of bullet-points with no context? When did he join which committee? Is that list complete? No clue how to verify. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As is too often the case with key members of the U.S Congress, the article gives far too much weight to controversies and political positions, and to more recent events of a rather lengthy political career, at the expense of being a balanced biography (article has been tagged with Recentism for almost a year).  Believing that sourcing committee assignments is problematic is actually evidence of the need to change our approach to sourcing; the encyclopedia is already too much a reflection of what people found lying around the web today and not a reflection of the best possible sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ,WP:ITNCRIT asks for (1) updated content, (2) significance (which is moot for RDs of living organisms), and (3) article quality. In (3), it says that it should be minimally comprehensive ... not omitting any major items. Is this lacking any major items that keeps it from being minimally comprehensive? No. RECENTISM is a discussion point for WP:GAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recentism is certainly a mark against quality, which is what we are here to judge. That said, it's only one mark that should be weighed against other elements that may favor it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that some commenters at ITN/C take the "quality check" way too far. This is an article with 36kb of prose and over 200 unique inline citations. "Fully comprehensive"? Perhaps not. Minimally? Absolutely. If anyone can point out a "major item" that is missing, I'll recant my criticism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article still needs to meet BLP, and the UNDUE focus on controversy is a mark against quality. (This is sadly representative of many political articles today, editors want to make them laundry lists of every negative element they can find). We're not expecting GA quality, but we are expecting something far better than this. --M asem (t) 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What UNDUE focus on controversy? I see KAOS's comment about it, but what in this article isn't due? I'm giving it a closer look and so far the only thing I've found is this nonsense from crackpots. At least at GAN, the reviewer will state what they think is UNDUE rather than just throw up a non-actionable comment like that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Political positions" section should be not be breaking down the issues to that level of detail or without support of more third-party sources. Citing voting records to identify issues/positions is not really a good way to build this out because it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not which is UNDUE. eg positions including Trump and Biden make little sense. --M asem (t) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * positions including Trump and Biden make little sense welcome to American politics in the 21st century, where support or opposition to Trump and Biden are political positions. Sadly, Don Young congratulating Biden on his victory on November 7, 2020 is noteworthy to include. Otherwise, this is still way too vague for "feedback" and is not actionable. Again, I ask, "what UNDUE focus on controversy?" You say it can lead to editors choosing what to include or not without showing how you actually see that happening in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All that is around the "righting great wrongs" attitude that permeates politically-heated articles; it is not an approach we'd normally take for a neutral, dispassionate approach for a topic and reflects the RECENTISM tag that the article is labeled with. And its been discussed broadly at other boards about how political position sections should avoid reliance on voting records since that creates original research and UNDUE focus. That's all concrete issues that should have been fixed before posting. --M asem (t) 20:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All you are saying here is that "politically-heated articles" have POV problems, which generally is true, but you are not identifying any POV problems from Young's article. Nobody has identified even a single instance of primary sources based on roll call votes being used to RGW or otherwise violate neutrality. There may be more focus on recent events in this article than older events, but nobody has said that the early career is less than minimally comprehensive as required by WP:ITNCRIT. This is ITN/C, it isn't GAN. Smh. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic but I will keep it brief: using primary sources like news reports, voting records or press releases from the politician, absent support from secondary coverage (Which is used throughout this article) is similar to using public records on BLPs; it allows editors to cherry pick which issues they want to include and focus on for the politician, and just because the politician may vote against a certain bill doesn't necessarily mean they take a negative position on the bill's topic. Its a mess of NPOV and NOR (see for example Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive271). Now, when a politician's positions are covered by secondary sources and specific positions on bills are explained, that's fine. It's posted, I think it should have been fixed more, but its not worth the time to force a pull to be fixed, but it worth it to remember that NPOV and NOR is part of our expectations for quality for main page featured articles. --M asem (t) 04:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if most or all ITN participants have chosen not to listen, I've been coming here for years and pointing out that "Why, it looks pretty and happens to have citation tags in all the right places" and/or trying to frame everything solely in terms of the mere presence or absence of citations ≠ "article quality". This began in earnest in 2018 when an article was posted whose sourcing was heavily weighted towards the subject's personal recollections of his career (read: no fact checking going on there).  Obviously, some of you are unconcerned about the disparity between the impact of this project area by virtue of the links to the main page and the fact that it's yet another walled garden reflecting the mindset of a miniscule portion of the community.  Constantly invoking "our peculiar POV was ratified in a RfC, so bugger off" as a shield only makes things worse.  Is such scrutiny what you mean by taking the quality check way too far?  Sounds like some people just can't handle scrutiny when it gets in the way of what they want.  Anyway, you're really looking for more issues to address?  First, there appears to be nearly 200 photos of Young on Commons covering a variety of activities.  Why are the photos currently in the article so heavily weighted towards ones of him with U.S. presidents?  Second, why does the article have an "Elections" section in prose at one end of the article and an "Electoral history" at the other end, consisting solely of a table?  As the table fails to cover all of his elections, it's merely a rehashing of the previous section.  Standalone electoral history lists exist for a reason.  Regarding his electoral efforts in general, as a source, Our Campaigns is pure garbage when you look at the plethora of high-quality sources that routinely cover U.S. federal elections.  Obviously, we have editors out there who are very determined to keep pushing this "source" down everyone's throats.  These are concerns which should have been addressed before nominating the article, as a previous comment referred to, as for the most part they've persisted in the article for years.  The article's talk page looks pretty quiet to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , and yet you didn't make specific actionable points until just now. All you did was suggest that Young's article somehow didn't meet WP:ITNCRIT because of reasons. Please show me where your comments on the photos and the way the electoral history is handled are covered by ITNCRIT. Please show me how Our Campaigns, which has accurate election info, fails WP:RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While the noted concerns are valid, this is clearly sufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD per above. The article isn't perfect, but it is good enough for ITN.  And when the likes of John McCain and Harry Reid are debated for a blurb, Don Young will obviously not get a blurb. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well sourced. Minor reservations (see above) notwithstanding, this is more than adequate for RD. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is an orange-tagged article posted??? --M asem (t) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see an orange tag? I see a yellow clean up. That's not an automatic impediment to posting, though it is subject to administrator discretion.- Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, to me that looked like an orange tag but it is a yellow one (per WP:TC) --M asem (t) 21:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chaim Kanievsky

 * I'm ready to post now, but I'll wait for others to confirm it's good to go. El_C 17:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced. Can't read Hebrew, but I assume the article is ok. Grimes2 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, Grimes2. Yes, confirming about the Hebrew. El_C 18:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Gombe

 * Support Significant weather event with tragic loss of life. Article appears to be in good shape and of adequate length for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It peaked a week ago (e.g. 11 March) and so seems rather stale already. And it doesn't seem to have generated much coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly on the ITN. Gombe is notable storm, and is has caused many death in Mozambique similar Cyclone Kenneth. HurricaneEdgar    09:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly a notable storm with major consequences from an underrepresented part of the world. Also, the article is in good shape and ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable weather event, well-written article, significant casualties.  Mel ma nn   10:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose storm during storm season does storm things. Death toll is irrelevant, and this year already Batsirai killed more. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Batsirai was posted during the storm season in the same way as we regularly post the tropical storms hitting the Caribbean during the storm season in the northern hemisphere. So, nothing wrong in posting this as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a competition for the deadliest storm. ITN features weather events all the time, and given how wide coverage in WP:RSes is and how well the article is written, it'd be unfortunate if we failed to feature this story.   Mel ma nn   11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's stale, as the main event happened a week ago. Lots of the sources listed are the same Agence France-Presse report posted in different places, which wouldn't meet a definition of wide coverage. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A week ago means this is still less stale than 3 of 4 items currently listed on ITN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.187 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the storm has already dissipated so I think the blurb should say that information and not incorrectly state that it made landfall not too long ago.  Hamza Ali Shah   12:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I change the blurb. HurricaneEdgar    12:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stale. Comment – Landfall was March 9. However, I concede there was some follow-up coverage March 17-18 of the extent of casualties. Nevertheless, ITN worthiness seems debatable at this pt. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was 5 days after the death of Shane Warne, which is still shown on ITN today. --205.189.58.86 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post things based on the staleness of items already on ITN, we do it based on the merit of the article. And this article is not in the news worthy at this time. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the death of Warne, or anybody, worthy to stay on ITN for two weeks? --205.189.58.86 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and please drop this "stale" crusade. The one week standard applies to "singular events" which a hurricane clearly is not. Even if we did erroneously consider it a singular event occurring on the 9th, rejecting an event that occurred more recently then 75% of the current blurbs because a guideline requires it is WP:BURO.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Ridiculous to judge the staleness of a hurricane based on when it first makes landfall, for what ought to be obvious reasons; the impact of a storm tends to become known well after the actual weather event. --WaltCip- (talk)  18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support especially because of the death toll (now at 62). Not to mention that the extent and severity of its impacts only became known around a week after its landfall in Mozambique. For instance, this article, which reported that Gombe's death toll has risen to 53, was only published yesterday. Vida0007 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support For the usual reasons. Solidly high death toll, overall impacts seem sufficient for posting. Not stale enough to render unworthy of posting for this reason alone. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. It's not that stale; it's still the second item on ITN, and taking that into consideration the consensus seems to be enough to post. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Artem Datsyshyn

 * Support Meets minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks :), is there any chance that this one can be posted before the end of the day UTC? I understand if not, of course :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll ping Amakuru here, too, but I am totally fine if it doesn't happen today :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me regarding minimum requirements. (As a former dancer and gymnast this along with all of the death and carnage in Ukraine is heartbreaking and senseless). Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. I hope this is close enough to the end of day UTC. --PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barrie R. Cassileth

 * Length (400+ words) Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PFHLai. This article: . Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dru C. Gladney

 * Oppose More references required. (The article could do with being organized into sections, too.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sectioning added and citation needed tags addressed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will support now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oksana Shvets

 * Support Sourced. Prose size (text only): 1703 characters (288 words) "readable prose size" This article meets exactly the minimum requirements for a RD article, not more. Grimes2 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Too brief IMO; standalone articles should have a minimum of 3 fleshed out paragraphs outside of the introduction. This has 2 and a sentence.  Spencer T• C 01:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained that we don't know much, and that we could expand by theatre plays nobody knows here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please check again, I added some performances. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meets minimum standards, referenced.  Spencer T• C 03:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's slightly short at the moment but IMO this is weighed up by good quality, and she was clearly a notable actor. Yakikaki (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Christopher Alexander

 * needs sources Similar to the Pritzker Prize nom from a few days ago. Joofjoof (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is similar in the sense that unspecified sources are requested. There are 50 references and no contested text. WP:RS is clear that "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Maybe if you would indicate specifically with an inline tag where you disagree with the content then someone could add more sources to your satisfaction. Some time ago Wikipedia used to be a collaborative project. -- ELEKHHT 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are multiple paragraphs with no citations at all. At the very least, every paragraph needs an inline citation. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this is the established WP ideology. What I'm saying is that I see no significant content that is likely to be contested, and that this quantitative requirement for the number of citations to be >= number of paragraphs has no academic merit. In practice it favours short-termism, that is minor news with broad media coverage now will easily produce short and fully cited articles about tomorrow's nobodies, as opposed to subjects with huge impact over many decades, based on a vast body of literature. -- ELEKHHT 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator, you presumably wish to get it posted. It will not be with multiple paragraphs lacking inline citations. For a BLP, that's not good enough. I could pepper the article with citation needed tags if you really want me to, but for example, The Nature of Order is " Alexander's most comprehensive and elaborate work." Says who? A Pattern Language "has been especially influential in software engineering where patterns have been used to document collective knowledge in the field." A citation is needed to show its influence.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is useful, so please 'pepper', in the tasty, not the 'over-peppered' sense. I've been away from wiki-editing for a few years, and am concerned how the presumption of pursuit of self-interest has intensified. I nominated the article because I hope it can broaden readers' understanding of things that matter, rather than just feed the hunger for (well referenced) trivia. -- ELEKHHT 13:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Pierre Demailly

 * Support Seems to be a solid article. Sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wira Gardiner

 * Support Solid article. Grimes2 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Could use some more details and dates for his work in public service and his writing career. Joofjoof (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you expecting/looking for? All his publications are listed with dates and citations. MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The new section about writing looks good enough. For public service, there should be some coverage of what he did as Chairman/Director of these entities. Joofjoof (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. While I agree with Joofjoof's assessment that the coverage can be more elaborated, I find this wikibio an adequate candidate for RD purposes. This is a tad better than the prosefied CVs we have encountered in the space before. --PFHLai (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Detention of Mark Bernstein

 * Would be contained as part of the ongoing invasion story. --M asem (t) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As someone who knows Mark personally and spent time discussing interesting topics with him, I'll refrain from voting on this nomination and just note that the biggest absurdity in his case is that he was detained by a security service of one country (Belarus) for allegedly violating a law of another country (Russia).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I note that this is a brand new article and am unconvinced that Bernstein is notable outside BLP1E. I am pretty sure that we would not have created an article for an editor of, say, Reddit - so this is Wikipedia navel-gazing and certainly doesn't rise to the level of an ITN nomination.  It's worth a sentence in the relevant article on the invasion, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm of the opinion that we should consider ignoring normal rules of ITN and highlight this story, as it involves detention of one of our fellow community members for the very act of editing Wikipedia. Front page has a lot of visibility, and while I'm under no illusion that Putin's lackeys would care about what we have to say, we should still highlight it as a form of protest. Arbitrary detention such as this will have a chilling effect on ruwiki and will ultimately hurt the community's ability to fulfil the objective of this project.  Mel ma nn   13:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously WP:BLP1E sent it to AFD where it'll be speedy kept because "Rooooooosha" but still had to try. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose many journalists have been detained, and we shouldn't be prioritising this person due to their connection to this project. Whilst I think the article about the detention is okay, it's not ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per Melmann. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree we can't make a big deal out of this, per WP:Navel-gazing. However, this user sent a short msg of support to our colleague (although his 'talk' isn't active) . – Sca (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: The arrest apparently occurred four or five days ago and hasn't been covered by main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) —


 * Oppose per above. Subject does not pass GNG and the article is a naked exercise in WP:RGW. Suggest close as it cannot be posted while it is at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic but can you guide me to where can I find coverage of the Ukraine War + Wikip(m)edia incidents here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

 * Support - Front page in all UK newpapers, article looks good. Suggested altblurb. Mkwia (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly one of biggest news stories in the UK today. Also appears to have been reported on by american, German and French papers. I think the altblurb looks most up to date. Llewee (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle though "1971 arms deal dispute" section of the article is orange tagged as needing an update (and probably a trimming down, keeping only the bits directly relevant to Zaghari-Ratcliffe). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it is good news that she is now back home, there is nothing special (at least from the wikipedia article) about her release, she served her sentence and was let go. Chaosquo (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chaosquo Her sentence had previously been extended and she's believed to have been released for political reasons. Llewee (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * She didn't serve her sentence, her sentence kept on being increased, and then she was somewhat suddenly released when political tensions got better between UK and Iran. This is not a routine occurrence at all. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "from the wikipedia article", the irregularities should the reflected in the article. Also the "Imprisonment" section is just a big proseline.Chaosquo (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chaosquo, There is a separate section with more details now. Llewee (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This deal seems to have been a bundle in which Zaghari-Ratcliffe was just part of the package. What about Anoosheh Ashoori and the Chieftain tank deal? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barring any rationale of her sudden release, this doesn't seem to be a major earth-shifting story. --M asem  (t) 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been long running, high-profile and unusual, what with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson blundering by describing her as training journalists, and her husband staging a 21-day hunger strike on the steps of the Foreign Office.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This has been receiving widespread coverage in reliable sources and the article looks fine. A story our readers are likely to be searching for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Long ongoing story with a good ending, and a good article to boot.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as noted, Anoosheh Ashoori was also released, and while all this is terrific news for the families and so on, I don't see it as having an earth-shattering long-term effect on anything. It's in the headlines, sure, but more as a human-interest story and this is a classic case of saying we're not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The boycott of Russia is causing a thawing of relations with other oil-producers like Iran and Venezuela. Zaghari-Ratcliffe is just a pawn in the Great Game. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the profound earth-shattering consequences of The Power of the Dog  winning an award? Llewee (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although fairly widely covered wednesday, especially in the UK, this particular release doesn't appear to pack the impact wallop requisite to ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not quite notable person; not quite significant event. STSC (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – This was quite a significant news item (quite possibly even bigger than the BAFTAs which is in the ITN), but I also understand the reasons of those who are opposing it. Anyway, if this gets approved, it should also include Anoosheh Ashoori. The blurb should go like this: "Anoosheh Ashoori and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe return to the United Kingdom after being imprisoned in Iran on spying charges." Vida0007 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While Morad Tahbaz is locked up again. See The left behind.... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Good news, but I'm not sure this is impactful enough to be in ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't see an ITN significance here (though how this affects future Iran United Kingdom relations is to be observed). Gotitbro (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Terry

 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Grimes2. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The 1965-1967 coverage looks a bit short for individual sections - could we combine it (or is this a convention?) Joofjoof (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted after merging the short sections into one "Later career (1975-1967)" sectioon. --PFHLai (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Pfeiffer

 * Support Sourced, long enough. Good work. Grimes2 (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Merri Dee

 * The final paragraph in the Early life and education section does not have any footnotes/sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two {cn} tags remaining in that paragraph. --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fixed that paragraph. Hopefully it should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fakescientist8000. I have made some small tweaks and additions, too. IMO, this wikibio is long enough (1000+ words), carries enough footnotes, shows no formatting problems, and is therefore READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to offer a stamp of support on this one, but the tabloid The Sun (see at WP:RSP) is used for quite a bit of content, including direct quotes and statements likely to be challenged. I'm not sure if this is relevant to ITN criteria (i'm from DYK), so let me know if you're not seeing that as a problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, theleekycauldron, if Spencer finds it okay, it's okay. To be honest, I had somehow thought that was the Chicago Sun-Times instead.... --PFHLai (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought they were referring to that too. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Fukushima earthquake

 * Wait for the copyvio revdel and any news of casualties. Also, is that trench image the best there is? It looks like (and almost certainly is) an MS Paint red wiggly line on a map, very amateurish. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly when you compare it to the source identified in the image. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A suitably labelled version of File:Japan Trench.jpg would be a lot better - I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Replaced. Mikenorton (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Kingsif. Let's see how this turns out; we all know the consensus when it comes to natural disasters... Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- seems to have no notable impact beyond intermittent interruptions in power to Tokyo, despite how powerful the earthquake was. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the article, "There was a 37% chance that damage from the earthquake would result in losses of US$10–100 million; the likelihood for damages to fall within US$100 million to 1 billion was 30%." If that holds up, that seems significant to me, but I'm fine waiting a bit to let more information come out. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and see what the impact is. Right now, the confirmed impact isn't enough to be ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article now states four dead and 194 injured per infobox, no update on financial damage except for estimates above. 93 (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – 7.3 magnitude earthquake would be classified as major natural disaster. STSC (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with death/injury count (AltBlurb provided to reflect) --M asem (t) 01:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We should focus on the things that happened rather than the things which might have but didn't. For example, here's an impressive report on its earthquake light – a poorly understood phenomenon. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks important enough for ITN now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not very widely covered at this pt. Tsunami alert cancelled early Thurs. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It is a major earthquake,also article needs more information death, injuries... . Alex-h (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is a pretty significant earthquake, and had some notable effects in some areas. It also had a higher casualty count (both fatalities and injuries) than the Fukushima and Miyagi earthquakes last year. Vida0007 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I still don't see how this is notable enough for ITN. Would we post a hurricane that did the same amount of damage? Only one death, per the article can be directly attributable to the earthquake; the rest seem to be related to heart attacks and such. I suppose consensus appears to be against me, but I really do not think that this should be posted. It doesn't even seem to be big news in Japan anymore. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We haven't posted similar hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones etc. where no major loss of life was apparent, the blurb here gives the same impression (regardless of the earthquake's intensity). Gotitbro (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus, while not unanimous, leans in favor of posting; article is in good condition and thoroughly explains impact.  Spencer T• C 01:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugene Parker

 * Comment Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Grimes2 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Education (B.S., Ph.D., Utah) could need a reference, but I think the article is ok now. Grimes2 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Notable academic person, article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Alex-h. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) European sandstorm

 * Oppose Barring any serious death or damage, but this seems like something that a DYK could be pulled from. --M asem (t) 14:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now same here. Right now, it is more qualified for a DYK rather than an ITN, unless significant damage has occurred because of it. Vida0007 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the storm, become notable unless if they are reported dead or damage on the storm.  HurricaneEdgar    14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose despite me having to use my windscreen washers (catastrophe!) this barely rises to local notability let alone something I'd expect to see in the top 1000 news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN-worthy. For comparison, way less notable than Storm Eunice, which wasn't posted. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not notable for ITN Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dennis González

 * Length at 400+ words Deployment of Footnotes  Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT PER PFHLai. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Potvin

 * Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Pritzker Prize

 * Oppose It is a very long and well-written article, which unfortunately strays wildly from the subject for paragraphs and paragraphs, and is almost entirely unsourced. It could be improved, but I have little optimism for that being timely with the extent of improvements needed. Kingsif (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if you see room for cuts to address what you see as straying, would you just do the cuts? That's less to cite. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The material should be split, not deleted, but splitting out without references will lead to deletion. I am not invested enough to act as steward for a draft while sources are found. Where the splits should be made, summaries should also be left at the Kéré article, which requires some level of knowledge of the subject and some creativity. So, no, I can't. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is an important news item, and culture is under-represented in ITN. There are plenty of reliable sources and we also have good images. The text is a bit lengthy and repetitive and can be edited down. I don't see the need to split-out articles. -- ELEKHHT 04:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality - per Kingsif. Section after section without a source at time of writing, like nominator indicates, this needs a lot of citation work before it can proceed. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources are cited if there are entire sections without a single one. Best of luck to any and all willing contributors, I hope it can be cleaned up before the nom cycles out. If it can't make it in time, DYK might be a worthwhile pursuit when it finally does meet quality standards. Canadianerk (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the text is unreliable, is just not a good encyclopaedic style, probably by someone who's first language is not English. References back it all up - just need to be inserted. I did what I had time for. If there is none around to improve further that just will be a reflection of the extremely poor representation of architecture on Wikipedia, and the lack of care for the built environment we live in. -- ELEKHHT 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality way too much detail for a biography article. It has entire sections for every building created in Gando- this should be cut to just a summary, as a biography on a person shouldn't have the entire history of a primary school for example. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a note on ways of improvement, creating splits is not required, but moving unneeded or unsourced to the article's talk page can happen (as long as it's not unsourced biog material.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hide the mess in the closet 'till mom's not looking" isn't really a way around article improvements. If you want to legitimately dump text somewhere else to get this onto the main page, make a userspace draft with actual intentions to eventually move text to the village article/create an article on the school complex and summarise the info at Kéré's article. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your bad faith is ridiculous nonsense. 'Editing-out' is regularly article improvement, and it can be one of the hardest things editors do. Actual editing, often means removal. There is also no requirement for any article to keep unsourced or "wildly" off-topic content in an article, per Wikipedia policy, it is subject to immediate removal because such removal is an improvement. As for 'getting-it-on-the-main page', everyone here already knows this topic is capable of being edited to get to the main page (that is why it is ITNR) and there is certainly no requirement to create off-topic drafts in doing so.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your insistence is ridiculous nonsense. As other editors have noted, too, most of the bio is actually information about a village and buildings in it. That information belongs elsewhere, but do you know where it doesn't belong? Sitting on the bio's talkpage of all places just so someone can rush their article to "clean" without putting in effort to actually improve it. Kingsif (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense. I am fine with removing that content, feel free to remove it at any time.  That is what article improvement is.   Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then let me be clearer: you said that the off-topic information did not need to be split but should instead be moved to the talkpage/edited out (with the implication that it would either perish there or be reinstated when the article comes off the main page). That is not a viable solution; it does not actually improve the article, nor does it improve the articles where the information should appear, it just makes the bio seem cleaned-up enough to get on the main page. I suggested that if you really don't want to work on splitting out information and writing subject-relevant summaries in a timely fashion, you could move the information to a draft and work on doing those things over a longer period of time. I am fairly certain Joseph said the same. Basically: your suggestion to hide (or remove rather than split) unsourced and off-topic text, whatever your intention with that plan, is not a good one. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you made poor assumptions. Moving content to talk pages that does not fit in the article is regularly a mode of article improvement.  There is no implication that it would be added back into the article, nor in that form.  It's been moved because it does not belong in the article, and certainly not in that state. Or it can now or later be used elsewhere in the pedia, when someone finds it is useful. What is an obvious bad plan is splitting of unsourced content into a new article, that goes against basic policy and makes little sense.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That information belongs elsewhere, so it shouldn't be left in the biographical article, as that makes no sense. None of the information would be out of place at Gando, Burkina Faso, which has images of lots of the buildings anyway, so that seems like the most sensible place to put it (and therefore preserve it). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? I said, removal is the way to go.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with your comments here, and would add the caveat that most of the material to be removed relates to the village of Gando, Burkina Faso, and could better be moved to that article's talk page for future sourcing and development. BD2412  T 04:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, indeed (although there are also things other than Gando to deal with).  I wish I had the focus and drive to do it at the moment but I have not been able to muster it, and the mostly useless, and worse, stuff above has not helped.  It is a bit ironic that were the article a stub to begin, the blank slate likely would have been filled in relatively quickly to get to ITN. --  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Broad international apeal to important cultural news on high profile architecture award. Text needs refinement, reframing on subject, and more secondary sources . . . but splitting is unnecessary. Certainly a plus that it has quality images, an essential ingreadient for content about visual art and architecture. Cedar777 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the event is WP:ITNR, the only relevant criteria is article quality. And this article's quality is poor. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

‎(Posted) 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election, Serdar Berdimuhamedow

 * Weak support The article has everything that is required in an election article but with a very basic content. If someone could expand the results and reactions sections it would be great. Also, I think it would be interesting to mention in the blurb that he succeeds his father, dictator since fifteen years ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the alternative blurb. Article's quality is minimally sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IAR Oppose I don't think we should be promoting the sham election of a dictatorship on the Main Page. "All legal parties currently support the government"? Come on.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * However true it may be that all legal parties support the government, the Agrarian Party of Turkmenistan fielded a presidential candidate. Also, we've posted sham elections with similar outcome in the past (e.g. Kazakhstan, Nicaragua etc.), so there's nothing wrong in including this one as well (you would have probably made a stronger argument had it been a one-candidate or a one-party election).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How about posting this with a blurb which makes it clear that the elections were not free and fair? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no concerns have been raised regarding irregularities in the election, so it's more accurate to say that it was non-competitive rather than non-free or non-fair. To put it simply, people in Turkmenistan are used to live with the political system and no-one outside of the country really cares about it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article does make clear that this was a non-free election, and the blurb should show this too. Also, the article lead is too short (and ignores the fact that this was a non-free election), article is quite short and only has minimal aftermath section (which again makes no mention of the fact that this was a non-free election). This POV shouldn't be permitted on front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. We've been through this before, it's not Wikipedia's place or ITN's place to editorialize on whether we think the election was free and fair or not. Elections are ITN/R and the blurb should simply state who won the election. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article itself says the election was not free and fair so clearly that "editorializing" will prevent it from being posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an unreferenced claim that no elections in Turkmenistan have been free and fair with no specific details about this election. Furthermore, there are no reports of concerns raised regarding electoral irregularities in the media. You should present reliable sources which point out to instances of potential candidates being arrested or banned from running, intimidation of voters, vote buying and other methods of vote-rigging to claim that this really was a non-free or non-fair election. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added multiple sources calling it a sham on the talkpage. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I will continue to, on principle, oppose sham elections from being posted on ITN. Truth in reporting is not editorializing.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once blurb is edited to show that the election was not free nor fair. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support based on the significance of the event, but I Oppose the current suggested blurbs. I think it is fundamentally misleading to present this using the same wording we use for genuine elections when RS do not present it in that way. This piece from the guardian for example, describes the election as being an event responsible for . 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator and per Amakuru.  HurricaneEdgar    17:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your support is already assumed based on being the nominator. You do not need to !vote a second time. WaltCip- (talk)  18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but put the word "election" in quotes. Daikido (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I added second blurb because some source refer his father and dictator as strongman leader. ;  HurricaneEdgar    23:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm dismayed to see a sham election in a dictatorship on the front page. This is not significant news, and should fail ITNCRIT as it's neither remarkable, nor novel. It's standard rubber-stamping procedure in a non-democratic regime. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that there's literally one sentence about this claim in the article, that would be UNDUE to force into the blurb statement, in addition to not being in line with the need for neutral blurb statements. --M asem (t) 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment While I share other editors’ concerns about the state of democracy and human rights in Turkmenistan, it seems strange to claim that this particular election is not newsworthy. I might be inclined to agree if this election simply saw Gurbanguly’s “re-election,” but the fact that it signifies the transfer of power to Serdar makes it noteworthy as a change in Head of State. I do think the blurb should probably mention that Serdar is the current president’s son. Part of what makes this story significant is that it is the first dynastic transfer of power in modern Central Asia. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added potential altblurb noting that the election was neither free nor fair. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment as per Wizardoftheyear, it would be useful to include that the elected president succeeds his father, this is useful context for the reader. -LukeSurlt c 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * it make better add the the son of Turkmenistan leader's Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow because some news site mention this.  HurricaneEdgar    10:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Information from this place is not reliable. For example, they also claim to have had zero COVID cases because they have "a long history of suppressing data and a long history of punishing people who expose the truth". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * no, i'd bet that we should move there. seems pretty safe, along with the "democratic peoples republic" of korea and tanzania. /s Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 11:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Post-posting comments make clear(er) that there is currently no consensus to post this item, or at least not without a more informative blurb.  Sandstein   13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support posting it making it clear the election was not fair nor democratic. Bedivere (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Past consensus on numerous election blurbs when it is "known" that the election wasn't fair is that we post the blurb without any commentary on the validity of the election, regardless of what editors suggest during ITNC. The ITN box is not the place for that they of dispute, but it should be spelled out on the body of the article. This was an improper pull. --M asem (t) 13:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the pull is improper? I don't see why a past discussion/consensus on wording for a certain type of event (a discussion I'd be keen to revisit, admittedly) should overrule a plurality of editors here who are concerned about this particular blurb? Jr8825  •  Talk  14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Past practice is not binding here. The consensus in this discussion is to have a more explantory blurb, if indeed as Sandstein notes there is consensus to post at all, which is dubious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that there is a different issue here compared to posting 'sham' elections: with no reliable information about electoral processes in Turkmenistan, it looks like editors are arguing we can't even really be sure an election properly happened (rather than some internal changing of the guard or simple accession). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that then wouldn't make it ITN/R and the options to add more information or not post on lack of notability for this power exchange arise. Kingsif (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The RSes I'm seeing (nytimes, cnn, etc) all seem to accept an election happened, though the do quote the results out of the country's election commission, rather straight out as fact. I can't see that being the limiting factor. --M asem (t) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose pull. We've always posted elections for "dubious" elections in the past, and we don't editorialize in the hook. Please reinstate, this is ITN/R and objections on significance are not valid. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IAR Oppose while I acknowledge prior discussions on this matter, guidance does not trump policy. The word "elect" means choice or selection in both fact and general perception. To describe the process as an "election" is thus non-neutral, as it suggests legitimacy. A neutral solution is to post the succession instead, where no comment is needed.   GreatCaesarsGhost   17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have a general question about, like, are articles posted about similar events usually this short? I'm not all that familiar with this type of item so I have no idea what "minimally comprehensive" looks like for it and, currently, it strikes me as like not meeting the minimally comprehensive requirement. This obviously will not assuage most of the opposes on the basis of the wording, but like.... ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment let's have a discussion about ITN/R including authoritarian regimes at Wikipedia talk:In the news – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure why adding some sort of qualifier to the blurb is so controversial. The majority of RS headline the article with some sort of qualifier about him being the son of the previous autrocratic ruler. I don't think adding something like that to the blurb goes against WP:NEUTRAL.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually required by WP:NEUTRAL.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessasry commentary that appears to be trying to right great wrongs. The article can go in to explain that the election may seem fraudulent, but ITN's purpose is definitely not to even engage in such commentary in the first place. --M asem (t) 04:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Attempting to nuance elections would lead to all sorts of cans of worms that we don't need to deal with. Would the 2000 US presidential eleciton have been similarly nuanced due to the court halting the count and all that stuff? What about other cases where opposition alleges fraud? A bald statement of the result across the board, for all countries, is the only way to guarantee that we ensure equal neutral treatment without needing to get into arguments and what-ifs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think reporting something as stated in a consensus of RS is RGW. In fact it's not just merely stated, but it's included in the headlines. It's not like it's some fringe idea.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support "Blurb" Some places have "free and fair" elections and the rest don't, but they're all still kinds of elections. The ones that concern top executive seats are R, nevermind RGW. The losing candidates aren't complaining and the citizens aren't revolting, this seems like a peaceful transition of power, boring but typically very blurbworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Repost Article is good quality and the discussion I opened on ITN/R seems to be developing the consensus that we should still post sham presidential elections. IAR says if a rule gets in the way of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", ignore it. De-incentivizing editors from working on articles about sham presidential elections probably accomplishes the opposite of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Repost, per above, I completely agree with Amakuru. BastianMAT (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment there seems to be a consensus that we should re-post this, and the current trend in the conversation at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news is that the previous convention and ITN/R treatment of such elections is not to be amended at this time. Please could you reinstate it?  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru, because I have also commented in that discussion, I think that another admin should make the call as to whether there is now consensus to post this item. To me, it seems that opinions here remain divided on this issue. As to my own opinion, I oppose (re-)posting the item because I believe that because sham elections in nondemocratic countries do not change the actual power structure of the country, they are substantially less newsworthy than real elections. (Yes, media still cover them, but we at ITN must make our own editorial decisions about what we consider important.)  Sandstein   14:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit taken aback by the premature push to treat the outcome of the discussion at Talk:ITN as determined, when it has been open less than 24hrs. The best discussions can often swing in different directions as arguments are made and preceding discussion is considered. There's a lot I'd personally like to say on the inaccuracy/inappropriateness of presuming non-democratic elections are significant events - and the normative irresponsibility of us treating them at face value – but I need time to sit down and write up my argument/views. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking the outcome of that discussion as determined, but until such time as it is determined, then we abide by our current convention and rules, which is (per precedence) that ITN/R applies in this instance and that the blurb should be minimal and factual. If the WT:ITN discussion were heading to a snow close to amend the rules, then that would be different, but it isn't so the rules apply. And, I think as the admin who removed the item from ITN in the first place it should be you to reverse it, since it is fairly clear that the posting is indeed supported by the consensus here in this discussion. With your admin hat on, not with your hat as a contributor to the discussion, you should reverse your action and restore the prior state which was that the item was posted. If anyone else does it, they run the risk of being accused of WP:WHEEL. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I hereby absolve any other admin from any WHEEL-related charges. As a person who has now offered an opinion on the merits, I should not be taking any more administrative decisions with respect to this matter.  Sandstein   15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I still have a concern over whether this article actually meets minimum comprehensiveness per the general criteria. "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. [...] Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page." This article is mostly table with less than 500 words including the lede and only about 290 outside of the lede and background section. This feels really under-baked especially for an item that has caused enough excitement to be pulled. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Comment Oppose reposting – No on-again off-again editing by committee, please. Let's leave things as they are – particularly considering the reported nature of this, um, election? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and re-post. The article is brief but in good order, opposes based on it being a "sham" election have no standing as there is no criteria to disqualify such things and should be disregarded. As such, the original consensus to post this ITN/R item is valid. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there’s some debate over whether there was an original consensus. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When you disregard the invalid opposes due to it being a "sham" election as there is no such criteria then the consensus is easily in favor of posting. The item is ITN/R the only threshold is quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time that this was posted 3 people opposed posting this completely, 4 people supported posting but had varying levels of issues with the blurb and 3 people including the nominator supported the item as written. I have no idea how that discussion could possibly have been read as consensus to post the item in the originally proposed format. While you may disagree with the opposers there are legitimate discussions to be had about the newsworthiness of "elections" where the result is already known in advance and how a blurb describing such an event should be written. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this is still covered by ITN/R. As it says in the template above, The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How does being on ITNR address the fact that at the point this was posted over half the people who supported posting felt that the blurb needed editing or changing? ITNR only addresses the significance part of the criteria, it doesn't give an excuse to ignore all other feedback and issues raised, hence the lack of consensus to . 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE and their opposes were invalid for the criteria as the item is WP:ITNR and as Muboshgu pointed out a contradiction to In_the_news/Candidates #5. If the WP:ITN criteria really exist and this whole thing isn't just a WP:SOAPBOX for POV warriors then it absolutely needs to go back up with the standard election blurb. Our credibility is diminished not posting this. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, how is opposing the blurb related to the ITNR criteria? The ITNR criteria do not specify that a particular blurb has to be used, they only show that the even is assumed to be significant enough to post. The opposition to the blurb do not seem to be based in WP:SOAPBOX type arguments but rather on the basis of how this event is described by other news media and in the article. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only two of the post-posting opposes mentioned the blurb, and opposition to the blurb is not opposition to posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So as soon as an item is posted all the feedback left before posting is suddenly irrelevant? I also don't see how you can treat the blurb and the posting as two unrelated things, how on earth are you supposed to post something if people oppose the proposed blurbs? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose due to quality, this is a realy thin article for an election (probably because it wasn't really an election), but if we are going to post it, why not use Alt3 or Alt4? Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I guess it's acceptable to post in two days when he formally takes over, but let's not pretend he was elected fair and square. Calidum  19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't we post it when the elections actually occur, not when they take office? DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do indeed. I have no idea what's going on here, but I see absolutely no reason why this is still being withheld. The majority here are in favour, and the rules say we post it. But hey ho. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By my count, there are 9 supports for a plain blurb, 3 supports with qualification of it being a sham, and 10 opposed. That's 9-13 against a plain blurb. I think we could get majority support for a qualified blurb, but it's hard to say where everyone would fall. Also, ITNR is a guideline, not a rule. The rules say we follow consensus, and there is clearly no consensus here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support First for my opinion regarding the debate that has been opened in Talk page. Second because the quality of the article is sufficient. Third, because it's not necessary to wait for him to take office to be included in MP: the elections are ITNR. And fourthly, because I don't think that the pull, as Amakuru says, was appropriate. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (and support pulling); the article, supported by reliable sources, makes it clear that this an election only in the loosest sense of the word. Indeed, I doubt much of our readership would recognise it as an election at all. In any case, our blurb should reflect what the sources are saying, and they not calling this "election" an exercise in democracy.  SN54129  13:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Serdar Berdimuhamedow has take office, so i change the blurb per the reliable source. ; ; ;  HurricaneEdgar    09:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we have a blurb that does not mention the election on MainPage?
 * ALT5: Serdar Berdimuhamedow (pictured) succeeds his father Gurbanguly and takes office as president of Turkmenistan.
 * --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO it's not ideal because the election remains ITNR, but it's a compromise that's better than nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a dealbreaker for me, no standalone oomph, 100% dependent on the standard exception for elections. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the above discussions, the elections page is not getting onto ITN, despite ITNR. So I thought perhaps we can treat the new president's wikibio as a new and separate ITN nom in ALT5. --PFHLai (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's reasonable, I get it. Just not the strongest candidate, either by article greatness or deep analysis. Mostly just AP copies and sheep dog diplomacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can post ALT5 on MainPage if there are support votes! posted here. Shall we? --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with that, if it's the best compromise available. As per above, I still think we should have kept the original story, but please post the ALT5 as the next best thing. It can be dated 19 March as that's the date he succeeded his dad. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I think that's a good enough compromise. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the support for this compromise blurb. Posted without the picture ('coz it's not the top news). --PFHLai (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pervis Spann

 * Support - fully sourced, seems fine to me. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article. No issues. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mina Swaminathan

 * Not Ready Article is largely unsourced. Will reconsider on improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Four {cn} tags still remaining. Please add more REFs. -PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Scott Hall

 * Seems pretty close. There are a handful of sections with no citations (e.g. Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2005, 2007–2008)).  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending touchup. I'd wanted to get this blurbworthily persuasive in time, but I forgot. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than a little cleanup. I've added some citation needed tags, but some of the article needs lots of citations to cover what is being said. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle once article is cleaned up. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once all the CN tags have been addressed. There's also zero sourcing for the "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2002–2005, 2007–2008)" and the "Return to the WWC (2007)" sections.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. There goes a bit of my childhood. Thank you Razor Ramon. Go well. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding citation needed tags.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are at least 7 {cn} tags and two {unreferenced section} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this will get posted with the issues it has even though it deserves to be. Whether or not it does RIP a legend.  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 03:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It deserved a nomination, and had a fair shot at meeting the usual requirements, you did a good thing. Failure to post doesn't reflect poorly on his work or life, anyway, there's a much broader fundamental gap between professional wrestling and encyclopedia writing at play here, not even Inoki or Foley or Darsow are immune. Even if it was covered with the same basic respect politics, weather and sports get and written in exquisite Bockwinkelian, text and public domain stills are only going to explain so much about a career as action-oriented as these. No slight on the public services Wikipedia does adequately provide the English-reading world, but admit it, the important thing here is YouTube remembers plenty. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maureen Howard

 * Support Article looks good: no cn tags, and nothing else I would consider to be bad within the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know!) 11:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate sourced. Might be a C article? Grimes2 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Hurt

 * The article needs referencing updates, especially the filmography. --Tone 21:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The filmography is now sourced in its entirety. TompaDompa (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support listing in recent deaths. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. BD2412  T 01:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article seems to have no major problems.  Hamza Ali Shah   01:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting, excellent work! --Tone 09:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb. Top actor in 80s, Academy Award winner, three back-to-back Oscar lead nominations, worldwide known. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely not close to top of field for blurb territory. A few notable roles but not a long influential career. --M asem (t) 13:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely closed to top of the field. Back-to back lead Oscar noms are indicator of this, as well as career during five decades. And he has numerous memorable roles. He is also far more known then Shane Warne and Dilip Kumar, who were blurbed. One of the reasons to oppose Betty White (she still got blurb) and Peter Bogdanovich was that they were not Oscar winners. He is, and he exceeds standard for usual RD. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He is also far more known then Shane Warne and Dilip Kumar needs the qualifier "in America", let's be truthful here. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as despite the comments above, I don't see them as being absolutely blurb worthy. Not one of the most well known actors of all time, which would be the actual standard for a blurb, wouldn't even be considered if they weren't American.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * THe headline of Rolling Stone article is literally "These 10 Roles Remind You Why William Hurt Was a Once-in-a-Lifetime Actor" - Cannes Award, BAFTA and Oscar winner. The level coverage is huge, see giant talent. He still had projects in development. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb He was huge, but I do not see him rising above other Oscar winners in terms of reputation (like, we will probably post Daniel Day-Lewis and Robert De Niro, but there are Oscar winners aplenty, there has to be something else than popular and award-winning, likely something more intangible) and in terms of his death, it's old man dies. Do you want to post every major film award winner? This is how you end up with that precedent. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * His reputation was also based on his intellectual roles, and not all Oscar winners have several nominations, and not all are deemed worthy in retrospective. "That was all a lead up to one of the most stunning periods of dominance ever enjoyed by a movie star. From 1986 to 1988, Hurt was nominated for three consecutive best actor Oscars... The commercial and critical success of those films rocketed Hurt to the A-list, but he didn’t seem to relish the celebrity." - From Variety. "Acting Legend" . It was unexpected, he still had projects in pre-production, so here death may be a story, too. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't support a blurb in this case either, "in terms of his death, it's old man dies"? He was 71, and until pretty recently a working actor. BD2412  T 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is to say unremarkable death. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless it's beyond dispute that one's career stands out particularly among others in that field, I beg participants in ITN/C to not support or advocate for a blurb for RDs. Anytime one is proposed for a case that's not even borderline, the oppose comments that result generally tend to be unnecessarily denigrating and disrespectful towards the subject. A reasonable person (at least in the U.S.) would not walk up to someone's open casket at a funeral and proclaim "Well, he was okay, but he was no Robin Williams." --WaltCip- (talk)  17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Take this as moral support for your statement. But if someone at that funeral was proclaiming that the decedent was better than Robin Williams, you would probably shut that person up, being realistic isn't always rude. Kingsif (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I don't necessarily think that's forgivable either. But my point is that we shouldn't even try to initiate this discussion if people have had a day to weigh in on an RD and a consensus never previously developed for a blurb. WaltCip- (talk)  19:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb a fine actor and a personal favorite, but really not approaching the (admittedly subjective) standard we go by here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards

 * Support as nom - satis. Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Hamza Ali Shah   02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Should there be an "In Memoriam" section? Last year's page has one. The Award and Statistics tables should have references too. Joofjoof (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality statistics and in memoriam sections are unsourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What? MOS:PLOT exception - refs have not been expected for the In Memoriam to get this (or other awards articles) posted to ITN, that I remember. A video shown during a TV broadcast is, you know, PLOT. Demanding refs gets editors who don't usually touch awards articles jumping in messing the section up, which I just had to fix, too. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like all those tables are sourced now, so looks okay to me. Although in principle, I don't see how this would be a MOS:PLOT exemption. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The results and noms, no exception, because they are notable whether there is a ceremony or not. But the In Memoriam section is "just a video", that is anticipated and people like to discuss who isn't in it, but still a video exclusive to a television broadcast, not part of the live show or the awards. In word (and in spirit, as I watch it), it is as much PLOT as any other scripted TV video. I did add a ref for it, though - hopefully primary (BBC, not BAFTA: another indication of PLOT, the TV network has it but the awarding body doesn't) source will satisfy? Kingsif (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Sourced, with prose, looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the "statistics" section violate WP:SYNTH? I understand counting is not really modifying, but the substance of the entire section is information that is not in the sources.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That never even crossed my mind. Hmm, would you think of calling it SYNTH if the source said in prose "Power of the Dog won Best Picture and Best Director" and the article summarized that as "Power of the Dog won two awards"? Because a list and a table are just easy-to-navigate versions of those. Isn't there some simple math exception to sourcing guides in general anyway? Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Routine calculations do not count as original research," per WP:CALC. Calidum  15:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a WP:Routine calculation (it involves counting up to 11, which is simple maths), which is specifically mentioned as not OR/SYNTH. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing to make sure is that counting noms and wins is something done (if not fully worked out) by RSes to show that this is not just transporting. As I am pretty sure this happens with most major film awards including BAFTAs this should be fine.--M asem (t) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They do. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and thanks all for the education!  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Per nom. enough source and information. Alex-h (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brent Renaud

 * Support article seems to be well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah   17:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Details still unclear, but NYT is claiming he may have been killed during shelling of a suburb in Kyiv. I don't think this necessarily calls for a blurb, but I just figured I would mention this detail in case that impacts discussion. WaltCip- (talk)  18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on quality. I'll be glad to see this appear. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as per others. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Timmy Thomas

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't look like much work has been done on it, unfortunately.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Traci Braxton

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still some outstanding cite tags and an unreferenced section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rupiah Banda

 * Support Solid article and well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted after fixing multiple deadlinks in refs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) India fires missile into Pakistan

 * Hypothetical Weak Oppose A supersonic missile at that, but any future article on the accident itself will likely be stubby, and the happy ending sure to dissuade the MINIMUMDEATHS-minded regulars. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No article, and India has already said it was an accident. --M asem (t) 03:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've fixed up the nomination first made by an inexperienced IP editor. This seems to be quite significant international news; not the sort of thing we should rush to suppress. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose has no article of its own and the linked article is, and it looks like a bad joke, two lines. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as there's only 2 lines of text about it. If it's that newsworthy, then there will be more that can be written. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The death of Shane Warne was lead blurb for a week even though there wasn't much to be said about it ("natural causes") and the section about his death still just has two lines. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Masem. Although Pakistan demands investigation, no casualties & not widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements/creation of standalone article - Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. If any other nuclear power (see List of states with nuclear weapons) fired a missile into the territory of another nuclear power (think: U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France, North Korea), this would be posted in a heartbeat, even if it was an accident. It doesn't matter if there are any casualties. It is a significant event in and of itself. There is international news coverage. Also, suggestion for the blurb: "accidentally" is POV as that is India's statement, just like how we did not call the Ukraine invasion a "special military operation" per Russia's statement. 174.3.214.138 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any plausible reason to intentionally fire an unarmed missile at a wall of no strategic value during peacetime? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To test anti-missile defence capabilities (and vulnerabilities) of an adversary. Same reason why countries like Russia make incursions into foreign airspace or territorial waters to see how far they can go before they get a response. 174.3.214.138 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I could buy into that. I don't think I will. But it's something to ponder. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per above. No article is usually a showstopper. Yes, there are exceptions, but this aint one of them. If this actually turns into something that generates a real (non-stub) article, I will reconsider. Until then, this is going nowhere. Suggest close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor issue, zero casualty. Apparently, there's not even enough story to write a stub article. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Duffy

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 19:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Spencer. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout

 * Oppose For the same reasons this was opposed for when the lockout started. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I like to consider myself a big baseball fan, but I just don't see the significance of this news. Ultimately, this lockout had minimal effects on the average fan's experience. The only noticeable result of the lockout is that the season is going to start about a week later than normal. The rest of the changes are relatively minor rules changes such as universal DH and other labor/contract related stuff that the average fan wouldn't really understand and the long-term effects of which would probably take at least season to understand. Not to mention, it's not even the number one headline on ESPN right now (at least for me).  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Effectively only a few games of the season have been missed. Not a serious effect. --M asem (t) 02:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They haven't even been missed, just rescheduled. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Masem, not a very large effect besides some rule changes. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobbie Nelson

 * Comment: Pretty close. Added 1 CN tag in article body. The lede (2nd paragraph) is a word-for-word copy of the body; lede should either be condensed or the body should be expanded. Support once changes made.  Spencer T• C 15:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. The missing citation and the duplication in the intro identified by Spencer have both been taken care of. --PFHLai (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yevhen Deidei

 * Support article looks pretty good, but I'm not sure that the section on his financial earnings and net worth has much encyclopedic value. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Under sourced (including some contentious claims), a number of parts look like a hit piece, some sources are dubious. Black Kite (talk)

RD: Odalis Pérez

 * Not Ready Most of the article is unreferenced. This is going to need some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Grabowski

 * Almost there One CN tag. Otherwise short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, grateful that I didn't have to do it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Emilio Delgado

 * Comments: There are a couple of {cn} tags in the prose. The long list of bullet-points following the prose are largely unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Elliott (historian)

 * Not Quite Ready The books need an ISBN. Otherwise the article, while short, is adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The books do not need an ISBN, that is a requirement for the references of an articles, not for a list of publications by the article's subject. Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, all information in a BLP needs referencing, and ISBNs, or some other reference for his works, show that he did write those books. Stephen 00:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. All ISBN numbers in Bibliography section added. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mario Terán
Far too much of the article centers on Che's exploits that have nothing to do with Terán. I understand we've completely abandoned WP:1E, but BLPs still should be about the person in the title.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a handful of {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kimberley Kitching

 * Support Decent article and well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Mian Channu incident

 * Oppose and recommebd speedy close. We already discussed this on the nomination on Mar 12 above. India said it was an accident. --M asem (t) 13:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per Masem. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment most of the opposes in the previous discussion were based on the fact that there was no article, and only a couple of lines of text in the article linked. Now there is an article, it seems worth at least discussing the event's notability again, rather than snow closing it based on a different situation. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as this is an unusual event that received continued coverage in both countries and internationally.Ameen Akbar (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - we now have an article before us. Please give your valuable 2 cents here. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Significance appears to be almost non-existent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - as per AA above. Depressed Desi (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per other Oppose votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Coombs

 * Support Article is in good shape. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support more than good enough for RD. Marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Pinkel

 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Inge Deutschkron

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced. Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Wheeler

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tomás Boy

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. The first half or so of the article is actually decently referenced. Unfortunately, after that it goes downhill quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Quite a few {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Presidential election in South Korea

 * Wait Well, this is quite a close result as of an hour ago. Omnifalcon (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems like news outlets are more or less comfortably calling Yoon the winner by now, so I've proposed a blurb to reflect that.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The picture in use on Yoon's page and the election page seems to be from the election commission, and is probably a public license but I'm not sure. As a backup I added an image that is acceptable but it's got some image resolution quality issues. Also there's plenty of unsourced text on the page, but we do have a concession and race calls. Omnifalcon (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 2 The results have now been announced so I see no problem in posting this.  Hamza Ali Shah   00:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 As per above, with Lee conceding there's little uncertainty left as to who the winner is by now. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support The result is decided as Yoon's victory. Reiro (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality the election article is tagged for needing copy editing. Once done, consider this a support. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Joseph. The results section lacks more prose than there is and also lacks a section on "reactions" or "aftermath". Otherwise the article is quite good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — I would suggest to include the description "Conservative candidate" in the blurb. STSC (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2. No need to label conservative. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Article looks fine. Flameperson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. The article is enormous and highly comprehensive on the primaries, campaigns etc. However the 'results' section has just one unreferenced sentence, with no reaction, and Lee's concession is only mentioned in the lead. That could do with a few sentences. Otherwise alt2 is the way to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Article seems to be good enough. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated picture as it was cleared under the KOGL Omnifalcon (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready I counted at least 10 paragraphs in the lower half that lack a single reference. Stephen 23:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added references to most of the paragraphs. I couldn’t find any references for one part though (I have added a citations needed there). There might be a source for it in Korean though.  Hamza Ali Shah   10:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please, someone, I've been staring at Shane Warne's face for a week now. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I only contributed to the article just to cite stuff faster so his sunburned gaze would be off the front page, honestly. Omnifalcon (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Still missing a reactions/aftermath section, and there should be enough material by now. --Tone 09:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Referencing concerns appear to be addressed now.  Sandstein   18:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David Bennett

 * A biography that only covers the last three months of his life? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the notable part. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then how does this article not fail WP:BIO1E? The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see this was kept at AfD. I'll just walk away from this, nothing good will come of my involvement here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per concerns raised by Muboshgu. This does not appear to be a complete biographical article and the subject likely fails WP:1E. I took a look at the AfD and all I can say is that the discussion is embarrassing in its near complete refusal to address policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. It isn't a biography at all, it's an article about a pig organ transplant under the wrong title. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a biography and shouldn't even exist Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-opening this, because despite the non-admin closure above, the article was snow kept. RD does not debate notability.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support passes notability, defied an AFD, article is up to scratch, death is "in the news". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the only detail of his life other than the transplant, is a section on his crime and time in jail. As such it seems the article is unduly focused on negative aspects of this guy's life. If some more detail is added about the rest of his life, then I might support. Either he's notable, and we should give him a full bio, or he's not notable, in which case the article should be moved to some other title which focuses on the transplant only. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, the article was nominated for deletion and was kept. So the "community at large" believe him to have satisfied GNG.  As I noted on ITN talk, this has already been subject to IAR.  Perhaps it's going to experience a double-IAR: the community believe him to be notable yet ITN don't, so no likey, no posty.  What's available about his life seems to be already covered, he's probably got a shit-ton more coverage globally than most of the Indonesian naval officers etc we post combined, but there you go.  Wikipedia at its finest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well far be it from me to question the outcome of the AFD, Ramblo, but really I'm just applying the same standard as I would apply to any other BLP. If there are large gaps in the biographical narrative then I don't consider the article ready for RD. Particularly when the only coverage of the first 99% of his life is focused on a crime he committed. If such coverage is provided, then I might reconsider. Objecting on that ground is not relitigating the AFD, it's simply stating that the article as it stands isn't of sufficient quality as a standalone biography. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply not enough information in the article to say it meets the level of a biographical article. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obvious BLP1E, that AfD has some of the most useless Keep comments I have ever seen (especially the latter ones). Should be a redirect to Xenotransplantation where all the actually useful information should be found. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd discount the notability objections in the absence of a new AfD. However, I dont see consensus to post yet either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stats I nominated this because he was in the news (again) and that's what we're here for right?  But I'm not convinced that there's much point to RD because the entries are just names and so, unless there's some name recognition, most readers won't have a reason to click through.  You can see this by checking the readership.  Even though he's being snubbed by RD,  David Bennett is doing fine compared to most of the RDs.  So, clearly our readers are finding their own way to these articles.  Only Kimberley Kitching is doing better as her name seems especially distinctive and memorable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN and RD are not and have not been subordinated to clicks and view counts, otherwise it would just be WP:TOP50 as many here have opined. WaltCip- (talk)  13:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian refugee crisis

 * Oppose and close this was discussed as recently as yesterday. this is your fifth nomination of Ukraine/Russia events in the last 24 hours, and none have been anywhere near getting a consensus to post. Please stop, as this is getting disruptive now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and stop. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of the Endurance

 * Support, especially like the white dinner plates left by the crew on her deck (at 1st took them/these for some marine creatures, shame on me), in 3,008 meters below... ☆☆☆— Pietadè<sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">Talk 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And, willy-nilly, instead of writing here, every pro/contra letter inserted here, if inserted into improvement of the article, would make more (useful/productive) sense, IMHO ☆☆☆— Pietadè<sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">Talk 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. The article is poorly referenced and a lot of work is required, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Ernest Shackleton and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition are FAs. Linking Endurance (1912 ship) is probably the more honest main article, though. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose the entire paragraphs are sourced to a single source at the end of the sections, so sources likely are there already and just need to be polished. Support when this is done. --Tone 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality woefully undersourced. Support in principle if fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because people need a little good news amongst the bad Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support was about to nominate this myself. It is the kind of thing I can imagine people wanting to look up to read further. Update is still thin but will get there in short order looking at updates already applied. 3142 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Both encyclopedic and newsworthy. Note that it's the top read story on the BBC which reports a significant detail: "This past month has seen the lowest extent of Antarctic sea-ice ever recorded during the satellite era ... The conditions were unexpectedly favourable.". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, when sufficient citations have been added to the article to meet quality standards. BilledMammal (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer ALT1 over the original blurb, when this article is of sufficient quality to post. BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, article needs sufficient citations; encyclopedic and notable. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. Impressive discovery and we have good encyclopaedic content on the topic. The article on the expedition is an FA, but couldn't be the bold link. The article on the ship is woefully short of citations - there are multiple paragraphs of text with just one reference at the end. I've added an altblurb, which avoids the long clause before 'is found'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, does the ship's article even need all that content about the final voyage? That information is already present - and much better cited - in the expedition article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with one reference per paragraph. It may well be that all the text in that paragraph comes from just one reference. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. Regardless, my concern was e.g. the 'ownership' section has four paragraphs and just one citation, at the end of the final paragraph. That's definitely not acceptable. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to knock something we want to post, but are these types of discoveries something affirmed in peer reviewd publications (as the case for centuries-old ruins when things like carbon-dating etc come into play) or is it taken for granted that finding ship placards and the like sufficient for this purpose? Just making sure we're posting at the right point. --M asem (t) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable concern and I strongly advocate for awaiting peer-reviewed publications for science stories. However, a) this isn't science, it's exploration. It's unclear whether it would even be written up for a journal. b) No sophisticated analysis is required to identify the ship. The footage is incontrovertible. c) The media reports are quoting independent experts who are fully convinced by the discovery. Ruins are debatable precisely because they haven't been fully preserved so require a combination of scientific data and subjective interpretation to identify. This ship just requires watching the 50 second video. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is a bit better per the notes above. Definitely notable enough. — &#123;{u&#124; Bsoyka }&#125;  talk 13:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I couldn't believe my eyes when i saw this blurb. It's definitely a notable discovery. PenangLion (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support  ... per Modest, Bsoyka – pending article development. Found sunken ships always are of high reader interest. Fairly widely covered. Good art of wreck might become avail. Color ized 1915 photo above doesn't really tell the story. This might be a more appropriate pic. → – Sca (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominated picture was not colorized; it was taken with the Paget process. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha. Interesting. – Sca (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality as noted above. Referencing is extremely poor and will require some work to get this up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support after article improved Flameperson (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs some work but the title is encyclopedic and notable.Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait a bit to see if the article quality improves; if it does, I would give strong support. But tags need to be addressed and reliable sources added. Yakikaki (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, partially, let's wait for the ice becoming thinner and thinner, no need to wait some teenager to point our attention to it; read the article too, eventually (1st attention to the subject was drawn by the empty dish plates presented by BBC), and, it indeed, the piece needs some (strong?) author's touch to rise higher (btw, Mrs., male cats, mesdames, odd...) ☆☆☆— Pietadè<sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">Talk 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support in principle - the update is just about long enough - but it's kind of academic as the rest of the article is so undersourced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides, in about 6 hrs the coverage has widened/improved, so, not a 60 meters run on win... ☆☆☆— Pietadè<sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">Talk 21:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose just to point out that most of the comments that say Support are actually Opposes. C'mon, folks.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone would point this out. No one here seems to think this thing is actually ready to post yet. WaltCip- (talk)  21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly many of the early sections of the article are orange tagged with needs of refs. This isn't just a few missed CNs we can ignore. --M asem (t) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Orange tagged. STSC (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability once improved - This isn't an article I could update myself, especially not currently, but if anyone is willing it should really be an ITN item. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. Essentially an 'unimpactful' feature story anyway. – Sca (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Staleness of a nominated item shouldn't be an issue when there are items that are more stale still in use on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Referencing issue reduced down to seven two cn tags. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There is now only one cn tag, and that should not hold up the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as article issues have now been fixed. Most important ship discovery in my lifetime, definitely ITN worthy (even if it's slotted in halfway down the ITN box). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this should be posted before it gets any more stale. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have marked this as ready. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Lee (footballer)

 * Support Looks to be well sourced and ready to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leo Marx

 * Comment: This wikibio is currently a 250-word stub. Is there more on him to write about? One must wonder how he got such an impressive list of accolades. BTW, that list needs footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the citation issues. I’ll try to add some information about his work later. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it look ready now? Thriley (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC) any thoughts? Thriley (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nelson W. Aldrich Jr.

 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Miles

 * Posted Stephen 22:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Farrow

 * Length (600+ words) Coverage  Formatting  Deployment of Footnotes . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Conrad Janis

 * Support looks fine. Can find no earlier reports in RS.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good quality; no orange tags or cn tags to be seen. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is vastly improved from when I looked at it last. Another great job from the OP. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Good article for a notable person Alex-h (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian invasion
Proposal: Change  to  .--Hildeoc (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as no evidence of Belarus soldiers yet Chidgk1 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe Belarus doesn’t actively participate with military forces but Donetsk and Lugansk do, so it’s practically not only Russia and thus replacing “Russian” with “Russia’s” would be incorrect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * oh I misread - and misled you as nothing to do with Belarus - support as more obvious link Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This only proposes hyperlinking additional words. The blurb already says "Russia's". DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. The blurb probably highlights the condemnation of Russia’s involvement. Anyway, I don’t think the blurb should begin with an emboldened word and this is extremely minor thing so that WP:EGG applies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:EGG, and wonder why Belarus even matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unnecessary. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am periodically dragooned into rearranging the furniture in my house. I am not interested in doing that here. The damned chair can stay in the corner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You get the coveted CVU (Creative Verb Use) award for this week. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Bikeshedding Same argument, but no oppose, just asking editors to consider a minimum threshold of impact before proposing or voting on a proposal. TZubiri (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per InedibleHulk. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per InedibleHulk. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The result of this nom would be this monstrosity: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine is condemned by the United Nations General Assembly."    GreatCaesarsGhost   20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus to add the UN trivia in any case, so we've made that rod for our own backs. Stephen 22:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This month's theme is going to be about rearranging furniture on a certain doomed vessel I guess. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Russian bombardment of Kyiv TV Tower.jpg]] Thank you, User:Hildeoc for leading this discussion. As I alluded to in the discussion under on this page (this one: ""), the link to Russia's invasion of Ukraine needs to be more prominent than the link to Shane Warne. A blurb change to reflect the changing situation may also be sensible, since this isn't an isolated bombing that can be pinpointed to a single day (or hour, or even month), but rather a series of bombings over a series of very notable cities. It may be worth noting that " " rather than highlighting older news about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 (on March 2), which seems as though it's due to roll out of the "WP:ITN" anyway. -- RobLa (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment (OP) – Of course, I'd be fine with  as well.--Hildeoc (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Move Russian invasion of Ukraine to ongoing

 * Support for same reasons I supported it before, it's an ongoing event, so should be on ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the umpteenth time. It's a major event that is currently blurbed. It will drop off the ITN blurb list when the next news item gets approved and then it will go to ongoing. I don't think we will even need a nomination for that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not an actual rule, no matter how many times people try and invoke it. This event should be on ongoing, as it's an ongoing event. The blurb for it is stale- like most of the ITN box. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait But fasttrack the next dead "legend", old or not, we need closure. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - not while it has a blurb, and I don't think we should pull the blurb early. Assuming the invasion is still ongoing when the blurb will be other wise pushed off, then I support it to ongoing. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Can we at least go back to four items while we wait for a fresher legend than Dino the Popcorn Man? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Comrade Putin's attempt to turn the clock back to 1939 remains far & away the No. 1 story worldwide.     I'm sure Vlad the Invader et al. would be only too pleased to see it relegated from the Main Page "headlines" to the comparative obscurity of Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason for proposing this is to be able to add one of the consequences of war rejected below. I may propose one of them again tomorrow - meanwhile I hope some industrious Americans will improve them as I sleep. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Freedom Convoy tried that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Putin is a capitalist and has no intention on bringing back the Soviet Union. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an ostensible capitalist who invaded a neighboring country in 1939. The other guy went along for the ride. – Sca (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, if not today, then make sure that it happens as soon as it is pushed off of ITN by more recent events. The eyes of the world are on this situation. Side note - Speculation about Putin's motivations or worldviews are not pertinent to whether or not this is a story appropriate to categorize as "Ongoing". Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close as no reason has been provided to reopen this settled discussion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Will major future developments in the war be considered for blurbs, or will nothing other than its conclusion be considered important enough for that? Jim Michael (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, major incidents and developments will always be considered. Stephen 22:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose To make room for other news items? My understanding is that it rolls off ITN as soon as new blurbs are posted, just like any other hook. As such, it's literally impossible for a hook to be 'blocking' the ability to have more news items, unless editors oppose any other reasonable nomination on the basis that this hook stays up (in which case, evidence?). Otherwise you're just advocating pulling a blurb that is actually in the news, because ... ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Russia in the European energy sector

 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; The gas flow to Europe hasn't stopped yet. Might be newsworthy if it actually is cut, however currently everything is just speculation. DNVIC (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is already newsworthy enough for the major news companies linked above. Although it seems unlikely that Germany will boycott Russian oil they have done several unlikely things over the past week already. The guideline you link to includes "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur". The gas flow has not completely stopped and may not, but according to the DW source one pipeline has stopped already. That and the speculation of more has increased many people's gas or petrol bills - maybe even yours. Some people are interested in news which is already increasing their bills. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as WP:SPECULATION. If most/all of Europe cuts off their gas supply from Russia, that would be big news. But it hasn't happened yet. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose So, Europe considers stopping its purchase or Russia threatens to cut supplies? Let's first wait to see which one of these two happens and then re-consider it for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SPECULATION . This hasn't happened yet: and when it does, then we will reconsider it. I suggest close. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slashed WP:SPECULATION as I have just learned they are the same thing. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story -- and WP:CRYSTAL to boot.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Food prices

 * Oppose and close we don't need two nominations for very similar things. Food prices increase all the time. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close per Joseph2302. This is a normal thing; maybe not for the normal reasons, but inflation happens literally all the time. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Expand to include major price increases of other things, including gold & oil - the latter of which on Sunday night spiked to its highest level since 2008. Put all of this in one blurb. Perhaps merge this nom with the one above. Jim Michael (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't care then, didn't care before the Libyan invasion, kind of cared when it went negative and don't care now. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a part of the invasion. There are well documented reasons why both food and gas prices have jumped due to the invasion. --M asem (t) 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian refugee crisis

 * Question The war is obviously a crisis, but is the refugee situation itself a crisis yet? I see a quote in the article that it could become one, but currently it seems neighbouring countries had prepared for this many and are handling it about as well as such things go. That's not to diminish the alleged unequal treatment, but I think "crisis" might be a bit much, this soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the name of the article - anyway it is not used in the blurb Chidgk1 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more worried about linking to an inaccurate article, by any pipe. It's not just the title. The situation is described as a crisis throughout, alongside several ways these refugees have it easier than past refugees under new regulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Edited article to add official cite for "crisis" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-exodus-is-fastest-growing-refugee-crisis-europe-since-ww2-unhcr-chief-2022-03-06 Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A solid tweet, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This should probably be posted when it becomes the "biggest migration crisis (in Europe) since WW2", passing the peak 1.3 million migrants in 2015. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's apparently reached 2 million, according to a UN report: (also noted by BBC in their live ticker ). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although according to our List of largest refugee crises, there are 3 ongoing refugee crises that are larger than this. The biggest one being the Refugees of the Syrian civil war. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That says fastest, not biggest, totally different superlative. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So everyone, if your questions have been answered, do you support or oppose? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some good stuff here, but also much misleading, speculative and opinionated stuff, mostly covered by the invasion article. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the invasion article you are right the section there needs trimming now this article exists - I will take a look. Please could you tag exactly where the problems in this article are so people can fix them.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many places. From "largest" to multiple "could", "would" and "will" to "grave" and "phenomenal". Just look around. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now deleted the detail from 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine as you suggested. If you could tag exactly where the most serious problems are with this article I suspect they will be fixed quickly by other editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I suggested. Williams' "quote" and suggestion of IDPs isn't in the citation. That's serious enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out - I think the editor who added it cited the "live" section of the newspaper which has since been updated - replaced with a stable cite. If there are other problems could you possibly tag exactly where on the article itself rather than here in case I am not available to fix them - there seem to be a lot of editors actively improving it. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as the article has tag for needs to be updated, and the "Alleged unequal treatment at the borders" is massively WP:UNDUE as it's about half the article text. I'm not convinced that even if the article is fixed, then it should be posted (I'm neutral, leaning oppose on this)- there have been many mass migrations, and we wouldn't even consider posting this if it weren't in Europe (we didn't post the Syrian one after all). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right that section was a bit too large - have trimmed. I suspect most "in the news" articles need update as the news develops - I only tagged it a few hours ago but if no one updates it I will delete the Netherlands section as it only has one reliable source. I did not know about "in the news" at the time but as I live in the country with the most Syrian refugees I would have strongly supported it. There are several other editors on this article so if you could tag exactly where the most serious remaining problems are I expect they will be fixed quickly. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Will be part of the invasion ongoing. --M asem (t) 13:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't quite understand - could you explain more fully? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Incremental development of an ongoing news story.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vitaly Gerasimov

 * Support notable officer Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural question am I correct in thinking that this cannot go onto the front page until the AFD is concluded? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be correct, yes. This nom should probably be closed temporarily until the AfD is resolved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not over yet, but Articles for deletion/Vitaly Gerasimov is mostly KEEP thus far. --PFHLai (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nadungamuwa Raja

 * Comments: The Nadungamuwa Raja section has been tagged with {Confusing}, which should be resolved before this nom can proceed. The {cn} tag, too. --PFHLai (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These have been fixed. Joofjoof (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now is ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vasily Astafyev

 * Not Quite Ready Awards section needs to be properly referenced. Otherwise the article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Awards section has remained largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lynda Baron

 * Support Article is well lengthed and sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is ok. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. English actress, comedian, and singer. Well-sourced, although exact date of death seems not to have yet been published. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar

 * Comment Former world leader, doesn't this get a blurb? Castro and H.W., among many others, got one. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not every former head of state is blurb worthy. Tarir held the role for just 3 years, whereas Castro held it for 46 years. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So did Gerald Ford, we gave him a blurb. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was in 2006 (if we did blurb it, there don't seem to be any easy to find ITN archives for that far back), and shouldn't reflect on how we run things 15 years later. Tarar has been out of the public eye for many years, I don't see him as important enough for a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was before RD started on ITN. Ford's death actually reached ITN before discussions on ITN/C. Those were the days! .... Very different rules back then. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support RD / No Blurb Article length meets the minimum standards for RD but I am not impressed with the level of coverage for the head of state for a country like Pakistan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb figurehead chief of state while a military junta was in place Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD, oppose blurb just about enough content to post at RD, though if there's anything that could be added on what he did since 2001, that would be good. Oppose blurb for reasons I mentioned above. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * EXTREMELY strong support RD, could go either way on blurb Pakistan is the 5th largest country in the world by population, its population is about two-thirds that of the USA. This may not be the best article but it does meet minimum RD requirements, and even if Tarar wasn't the most influential Pakistani leader in history, he was still leader of the fifth-largest country. 1779Days (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I was considering !voting to support this RD, but now that someone has given an EXTREMELY strong support, it doesn't seem necessary.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's about equal to 10 supports, I'd say. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, strongly oppose blurb it meets the minimum requirement for RD but definitely doesn’t deserve a blurb, article quality isn’t to blurb standard. He was really just a figurehead and didn’t do anything significant to deserve a blurb. He should be given a RD though.  Hamza Ali Shah    Talk 14:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the blurb: Editors seem to be confused as to the significance of the President/head of state's role in here (as I was). In many parliamentary countries that position is different from the head of government and the President/head of state is merely a ceremonial figure/figurehead (as opposed to cases where the role is amalgamated like in the US).


 * As President of Pakistan notes: "The president of Pakistan, officially the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the ceremonial head of state of Pakistan and the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Armed Forces"; though the position of the President in Pakistan has been significant but only under dictators such as Pervez Musharraf. The Prime Minister has been the main executive in Pakistan (the only breaks being under dictator presidents) and was somewhat semi-presidential but that was further devolved into parliamentary/premiership under Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s. The last non-dictator/civilian presidents of note were Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Asif Ali Zardari (the latter still alive who even further dissolved the presidency) with prime-ministers of note being Sharif and Yousaf Raza Gillani. Half of Tarar's ceremonial presidency (1998–2001) was during the military dictatorship of Musharraf (1999–2008) when the latter served as the effective head of state. I doubt we have/would post blurbs for figureheads unless quite notable themselves (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II). Gotitbro (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Zhoga

 * Weak support Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank O'Farrell

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Frank O'Farrell could use a couple more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC) BTW, the 1976 Asian Cup is not mentioned in the prose. If this accomplishment can be verified, please add this to the prose. If not, this should be removed from #Honours. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one {cn} tag remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look now {cn} has been sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new footnote. However, I am not sure "set them on the road to Asian Cup success two years later" is enough as a source there. That may mean that O'Farrell trained the Iranian team enough and departed, leaving a blueprint behind to guide them to their subsequent success. This website shows Heshmat Mohajerani as the coach in 1976. I am looking for refs that state that perhaps Mohajerani the coach was working in 1976 under O'Farrell the manager, or something to confirm that O'Farrell stayed with the Iranian programme till after 1976. --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look removed Asian Cup from honors think the article is now fine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing up that. I have given up on finding that ref, too. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Beaumanoir

 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iwan Edwards

 * Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Peshawar mosque attack

 * Wait ... pending expansion of article, a 75-word stub in terms of info. Although internecine bombings are common in Pakistan, the death toll seems noteworthy. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support — ...in principle. Let's see further improvement on the main article. STSC (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality micro stub article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. Still need further expansion and the article is still a stub. There's also unresolved merge discussion, both article has essentially same content. Nyanardsan (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Islamic State have claimed responsibility for this attack, whose death toll is over 60; the most deadly attack in Pakistan since 2018. The article is over 15,000 bytes and good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Per Sca. details will inevitably come in in the next few hours/day for a proper page. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the 2022 eastern Australia floods was opposed to be in the news, then I don't see why this article is any different. It seems nothing else other than the Russo-Ukraine war is allowed to be on the news hub now.--Caltraser5 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize first, but this is a bad argument to be made for opposing a nomination. I dont think opposing other nominations because of personal grudge is helpful in any way. Please maintain good faith. Nyanardsan (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? Please read WP:POINT. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You all saw fit to discredit that article, so I fail to see by your own logic why this article would not also be treated the same.--Caltraser5 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems nothing else other than the Russo-Ukraine war is allowed to be on the news hub now. This is literally the opposite of true. There have been many failed nomination for more content on ITN about Russia/Ukraine, and we have posted 2 other things in the last few hours: the opening of the 2022 Winter Paralympics and the death of Shane Warne. If you're going to assume bad faith about things (which you shouldn't do), at least try and get your facts right. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, 2022 eastern Australia floods was similar in importance (maybe less widely covered) than Storm Dennis in Western Europe, which didn't get consensus to post either. But 2022 Peshawar mosque attack is more significant, at least in the short term, because of the higher numbers of deaths. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose impact is way lower than the European floods that weren't posted. So not ITN worthy - talk You contradict your own comments, 'not ITN worthy" now you say that this event "is more significant". We're not talking about this article, it was in reference to the Sumatran earthquake which was granted news headline, THAT was what my comments were in relation to. Which you promptly ignored and stated "not ITN worthy". You can't have it both ways, you ignored the context of my initial statement and then word-twisted it to be about the Russo-Ukraine war which I merely made as a passing comment, but ignored my actual statement.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's sensible to compare 2 natural disasters, it's not sensible to compare a natural disaster with an act of terrorism. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Continued coverage Friday, but article remains thin.  – Sca (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the article need that it doesn't currently include? Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * More text. Narrative prose still amounts to about 170 words. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything specific? If says what happened. It has a reactions article. It's a lot longer than 170 words - do you mean the length of the Attack section only? Jim Michael (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. Period. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't - it's well into start class. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One hundred and seventy-four words of narrative text (minus contents and 75 words of background) is a STUB . – Sca (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the f'ing f is the reaction article separate????????? Seriously????? --M asem (t) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the creator, although I guess it's because there have been many reactions. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've boldly merged the reactions into the main attack article, which then resolves the size issue. --M asem (t) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article. You can add as many reactions as you want, but reactions aren't article content that demonstrates a decent enough article quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per Joseph2302 ("There are six sentences on the attack itself and aftermath, that is not enough to be considered a good enough quality article.") Tradedia talk 20:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Theres a whole section that says there were two attackers, followed by a footnote that says there might have only been one. There are unsourced sentences and fragments, and the quality of prose is poor and/or ungrammatical in places. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides all that, this is yet another in a long line of screwy articles that intentionally conflates Amaq News Agency, an IS affiliate, with IS itself. The intent is based in the belief that we should make the same mistakes our sources do, same as facts, paying no editorial mind to any internal contradictions that create reasonable doubt, just shut up and copy the headline, "ISIS claims responsibility". An arguably solid stance, but still screwy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How else can we say which attacks IS claims? Amaq is how they make such statements. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the standard excuse, but it's as screwy as the first time I read it. Amaq makes the claim, citing "sources", speaking of the Caliphate and its soldier in the third person, nothing about "we", "us" or "I". But Rita Katz sells it as is, and the "reliable" sources inevitably twist it into something a Wikipedian like you feels OK in using to unwittingly corrupt another article. I hate this game. But not its players, especially those who honestly know not what they do. But maybe attribute the claim to the same outlet CNN does, without misrepresenting it as them? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, page contains 'Reactions' section with an unencyclopedic flag salad list. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The flags represent the countries' governments, so they're valid. You're all welcome to improve the article. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They know that. The "reactions" flag salad is a systemic issue with the way INT articles get built. These are readily available in news accounts, so they often come to overwhelm articles with less substantive detail available. A properly written encyclopedia article would not mention the PR statements of other nations, much less be dominated by them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, that's an issue with the format of event-related articles and not with this specific article's inclusion in ITN. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have done the best I can with my limited familiarity with the subject matter. I very much urge those with a greater familiarity with how this should be presented and the nuances of writing about such events look over it. Also, currently, there is one sentence in background missing a citation. I cannot spent more time on this article than I already have due to personal deadlines I'm ignoring. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted article has been improved suffienctly to appease those opposing on quality grounds. Stephen 05:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no happier about my problem with it, but that didn't stop a dozen or so other Amaq-related stories, so there's no reason to pull now. Just saying, for the record. I do like the improvements! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment An image would be appreciated to override the current one. If someone knows of an image and can post it to the article, that would be a good first step.--TZubiri (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb: Shane Warne

 * Comment needs a lot more sources. Also worth considering a blurb for this- he is one of the greatest cricketers of all time. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Saw the news pop up on Twitter, thinking it was a hoax. Sad day for Australian cricket.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a blurb should be considered. An unexpected death of one of the most famous and successful cricketers ever.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This definitely deserves a blurb, if the article gets up to scratch. Steelkamp (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment also here to say should be a blurb when up to scratch - one of if not the best cricket bowlers ever, sudden and unexpected/almost unbelievable death. The question might be whether to put Rod Marsh in it as well, if there will be a blurb up anyway? Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Second highest wicket taker in Test match history. An icon, A legend. Definitely deserves a blurb. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The equivalent of Lou Gehrig or Babe Ruth passing away today. Definitely blurb worthy.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:A4F7:A763:4009:B28D (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the blurb, probably the greatest bowler of all time (second highest wicket taker, but played fewer matches than Murali, and played a lot of matches on pitches that didn't suit his bowling style). Just needs people to work on the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is one of the rare cases where I think a blurb is justified - 700 Test wickets at an average of 25 is among the best in history, and his death was certainly unexpected. Unfortunately the article has patchy quality - much of it is fine, but there are parts without references or that mix his sporting accomplishments with his turbulent personal life. I think we can overlook a handful of cn tags, but not entire paragraphs/sections without references. Needs some tidying up before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I oppose alt1. Marsh was not as significant a figure and would not merit a blurb on his own. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Would support a blurb once the article is up to standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Though Marsh was older and not as legendary, I have added an altblurb proposal mentioning both. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb but oppose the alternative blurb. I don't think Marsh deserves a blurb and there's no reason to let him sponge on Warne's fame.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb One of the most influential cricketers in history (and I say that as an Englishman). Certainly notable enough for a blurb and article appears ready.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb absolutely 100%. A globally recognizable and accomplished sportsman was Warne.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt The coincidence is unusual, but each natural death of a famous person is pretty much like the other, double or nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The alt is not verified, as Warne's is a suspected heart attack. 100% we should not be claiming a cause of death that is unproved, and currently only suspected. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good enough for Deaths in 2022. And if it turns out to be an error, that's why ERRORS exists, and is frequently used. In any case, the coincidence is the neat part, like with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then Deaths in 2022 needs to sort out its verifiability, and avoid WP:SPECULATION. Because every source lists it as a "suspected heart attack" and so it is WP:SPECULATION to suggest that the cause of death has been confirmed when it hasn't. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. But most sources also mention Marsh. The blurb should explain why Warne was better than Marsh (or just among the best). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb Legendary leg spinner and second greatest spinner of all time in test cricket. He played in the greatest ever Australian team. Two tragic deaths related to Australian cricket on a same day. Abishe (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb once the article is ready. Truly shocking news. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb when the article is up to scratch. There are not many sportspeople who I feel deserve a blurb, but Warne was truly one of the greatest cricketers of all time. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support and IAR post right now. A middle aged cricketer who retired 15 years ago and is one of 106 people in the Cricket Hall of Fame is super important and needs to get a blurb in the box ASAP. This will still be making headlines a week from now so it makes sense to use a blurb for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you're being sarcastic but he is not being proposed for a blurb for his membership of the Cricket Hall of Fame but for the way he revolutionized spin bowling. Certainly top of his field.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I do not have any concern about the quality of the article at this time; and the significance of this is very clear. Truly shocking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, A notable and famous person in cricket. Alex-h (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT0 article is good enough now, so this looks ready to me now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb One of the greatest cricketers in history (and I too say that as an Englishman). Easily notable enough for a blurb. (Marsh should not be included in the blurb because although he too was a great cricketer he was not on the same level as Warne.)--A bit iffy (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Consensus is strongly in favor of the original blurb and the article looks OK. Calidum  17:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. Arguably meets both the "major figure" and "death is the story" criteria.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a story, the blurb should tell it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Shorthand for exceptional news coverage. Most RD candidates don't have live news blogs accompanying them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Major figures" do. A story is events, a setting and consequences. This is a job description and age. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NOT READY I have removed the ready, there are TONS of CNs still in the article, in "Playing style and influence" and the section below. --M asem (t) 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose blurb Neutral - I highly doubt that if Tom Brady died of a heart attack in a decade, he would be posted with a blurb. This appears around the same benchmark level. Not sure what is so special here when he's not an active player. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If Tom Brady dies in 10 years, I would support posting, for exactly the same reason: he's one of the greatest ever in his sport. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, true. I'm going to strike my oppose. After second thought, I'd hope someone like Wayne Gretzky would get a blurb when he dies, no matter the circumstance or age. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The quantity of missing references is significant at the moment. No need to rush it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb It's likely that Warne is more famous than Tom Brady in the English-speaking world. His record-breaking performances were top sports news to about 2 billion people (the population of English-speaking countries that played with or against him), six times the US population. For another comparison, try Pelé (may he live long).82.14.95.59 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (original blurb) and marked ready again I think that's all the CN tags done. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: unexpected, top of his field, and definitely a transformative figure. I supported the blurb for Tom Brady so it would be wrong if I opposed this.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb - quality seems to have been sorted out, and I see a broad consensus for blurbing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per WP:GORDIEHOWE. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was six years ago though. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was pulled because the posting admin had voted in support. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. I hadn't seen that Gordie Howe discussion before today. What an embarrassment. The #2 great in a sport played around the world. Pulling his blurb was an alarming display of ignorance by the Wikipedia community. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit off-topic, but I think the main reason Howe got pulled was because of the failure to blurb the death of Johan Cruyff three months earlier. I think people felt that it was a double standard. Of course, both of them should have been posted really. Effy Midwinter (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the Cruyff discussion, if anyone's interested in seeing how badly ITN/C can go wrong. Effy Midwinter (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Pull, only people whose death/funeral could support a standalone article should get a blurb. Otherwise its an embarrassment to the Front Page. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no Death of Desmond Tutu or Death of Sidney Poitier or Death of Betty White or Death of Thích Nhất Hạnh or Death of Lata Mangeshkar. Steelkamp (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But there could have been. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of them would justify an article about their deaths. However, I don't think we should have an inclusion bar that high for blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not pull Even CNN (which is in a country where cricket has very little mainstream popularity) has this... And, on top of that, there is absolutely no requirement for the death itself to be notable to support a blurb. We did so for the Apollo 11 astronaut who died last year (Michael Collins (astronaut)), and while Warney might not have walked on the moon [neither did Collins, FWIW], his impact on the sport of cricket and beyond is certainly sufficient for a front page blurb. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Impact considerations should be reserved for the person's death. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is simply never how RD/blurbs have worked. More examples of people who undoubtedly were significant and whose death was posted despite it not being notable in itself: Desmond Tutu; Nelson Mandela; RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Otherstuffexists. And it should be how RD blurbs work. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't just dismiss every comparison as "other stuff exists". Some comparisons are valid. Your personal opinion of "how we should do RD blurbs" is very much at odds with how they are actually done, as the above examples, including Tutu, Collins, and others, (here, one from not very long ago]) show... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is established that death blurbs are decided on a case-by case basis with no firm standards. Consequently, the rationale stated in the two pull votes is as valid as anyone else's. However, it is extremely bad form to request a blurb to be pulled unless there was some error made in the posting.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems that only Americans typically get pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, Americans posted while Europeans were asleep:) Here there was plenty of time for all corners of the globe to weigh in and I don't think there's any question there was consensus to post. (Also one of the two Pull votes was from an editor who had previously voted "Strong Support"...) Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb and posting per all the above (but as a Global Citizen and subject of none). Also noting that, surely, one of the supports was gentle trolling...? SN54129  13:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Shane Warne's photo as currently paginated looks startlingly overlarge for a mug in the context of our quite small ITN box. (A war pic. from Ukraine would be much more appropriate given the ITN's contents today.) – Sca (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a newsticker, we do not give preference to any specific story. Having a pic for the current top blurb is standard practice. --M asem (t) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but please explain why it has to be so big. The same pic could simply be reduced in px (picas). → As presently paginated, it violates the Looks Funny rule. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks the same as any other portrait photo used on ITN, at least for me. "Looks funny" is subjective and also likely depends on the device, browser and version of Wikipedia (desktop, app, mobile) being used. Not sure there's anything actionable here? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not subjective if you're laying out the item – you go by the number of picas after jpg|thumb (or just jpg| if it's not taking a caption/nameline, which this one isn't). Since ordinary users can't edit the main page, I can't tell how wide the mug actually is. But if as you say it's just the usual, then I guess it's my imagination. Still, to me it seems somehow to dominate the box and almost the main page itself. Maybe it's his ruddy complexion? Oh well. – Sca (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Fire breaks out at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL on the nom's comment as it hasn't exploded. Just another thing that Vladolf Putler has ordered as a part of this war. An attack on a nuclear facility starting a fire is just another event in the conflict. Given we have a failed assassination attempt on the president of Ukraine, hospitals being attacked, and alleged war crimes not getting posted, I don't think this should be either. A fire doesn't seem too notable in a warzone. Open to reconsidering if it does explode <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait because if it doesn't explode, it shouldn't be a blurb. And hopefully it doesn't explode. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And if it does explode, do you really think there would be much time left to post it before World War III occurs?! Daikido (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Despite this nuclear plant is also in Ukraine, fire damage doesn't mean it's going to explode, and 2. even in the unlikely case it is really going to be completely destructed by fire, it wouldn't mean a nuclear war either. C933103 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was a peripheral building (now secured, unexploded). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The main article on the battle, Battle of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, should be linked directly, and the focus should not be "Fire", but rather the fact that it power half of the country's demand. C933103 (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The fire has been extinguished. Amen. STSC (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The BBC's headline currently is "Global outcry after Russia seizes nuclear plant" and so it seems quite significant. The article about the power plant seems to be in reasonable shape and it's interesting to find that this is "the largest nuclear power plant in Europe".  ITN's current "nothing to see here" posture is inappropriate as it gives the impression that it is either broken or controlled by Russian censors. (See also Broken Arrow) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see an article covering this (and dozens of other Russian acts said to have caused global outcry) linked in bold on ITN. Today, something else in that highly visible article will likely garner outcry in another nomination. Maybe even an actual power outage or large explosion. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sadly just another episode of Putin's disregard for international laws and human lives. The fires were extinguished and nothing major was damaged. I still support having a few articles as an ongoing-box for this war but the box is not large enough to post every atrocity committed in this invasion. Regards So  Why  10:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait - Part of a larger event. The magnitude of the explosion as stated by Kuleba (10 times larger than Chernobyl) is still heavily contested by experts. Wait until further developments occur then we give a much more final decision on this. PenangLion (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Fire's out, per Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure. From the Guardian report, it turns out the fire was in an outlying support building, with no connection to the reactor or power supplies, and was brought under control without loss of life or radiation leak. Shelling a nuclear plant is incredibly irresponsible by Russia, but the lurid headlines and partisan statements from Ukraine made this sound much more dangerous than it was. There was no chance of a second Chernobyl, and no major consequences occurred, just one burnt building. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless it did leak radiation like Chernobyl, "power plant catches fire, extinguished quickly" isn't the most important news story around.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rod Marsh

 * Your signature has the wrong date. Steelkamp (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) . Thanks for notifying. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Just a few sentences uncited. Otherwise, the article is good. Steelkamp (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fully sourced now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded a bit and added references. Looks set now. Abishe (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support great job sourcing the article, as it was woefully undersourced at the time his death was announced, and now is well sourced (just 9 hours later). More than good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is well sourced now. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Winter Paralympics

 * Support, but move "Russia invades Ukraine" to the top position. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't do that here. ITN operates on reverse chronological order. WaltCip- (talk)  03:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exceptions can be made, and an exception should be made here - the invasion should be 'pinned' at the top. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not appropriate at all. ITN is not a newsticker. The Ukraine invasion will fall to ongoing when the blurb drops off. We aren't going to make exceptions here. --M asem  (t) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Original unconditionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose First we are not sure whether XJP is going to be appear in the opening ceremony and "open" it, second there are considerable aspects of this paralympic that are more notable than XJP opening it even if he do (See my nomination below). C933103 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - An ITN/R event and the article meets the minimum quality requirement. STSC (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until it happens. Then update the article. Also mention the fact Russia(n Olympic Committee) and Belarus have been kicked out. Kingsif (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the biggest amount of text in the article is on Russia and Belarus, not the Games itself. And mascot section is poorly sourced. Wait until opening ceremony happens, and then add a summary to that section (which is currently 1 sentence), before posting. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Points have been addressed. STSC (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing has been fixed, but the article is still way too short in general. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, ALT1 is our normal blurb style for this event, and ALT2 seems fine too. ALT0 is unsourced in the article (no source there says that Xi is opening it). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Neutral Paralympic Athletes article (the Russian delegation) may be redirected/deleted, as that's being discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Belarus_and_Russia, so in that case both delegation links in blurb II would be redirects. - Simeon (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The event hasn't happened yet and, in these "special" circumstances, it may not go to schedule so WP:CRYSTAL applies. And the similar case of the 2022 Winter Olympics closing ceremony shows that quality updates cannot be relied upon.  That event is two weeks old but its article is still in a dire state with muddled tenses, ungrammatical language, empty sections, unsourced sections and more.  But we're still linking to it on the main page and running it day after day.  It's embarrassing to be highlighting such junk while we're ignoring the real news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly notable sports event that started today.BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 Now the opening ceremony has happened, the bold main article in alt2 has a sufficient update on this, and is sourced. Also suggest closing the below nomination as it is covered by this one. Kingsif (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, An important and notable sport event and good article. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 1 Important global sports event. Alt 2 is certainly newsworthy; I wonder if it is undue though maybe it could be added. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2, the exclusion of Russia and Belarus is noteworthy and merits a mention in the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1 as the usual way this is announced. Blurbs are best when they are short and sweet, and the details about Russia and Belarus are better covered in the article than by making the blurb too long. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Considine

 * Length (700+ words of prose) Formatting  Deployment of Footnotes  Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Fawcett

 * Length (600+ words of prose) Formatting  Deployment of Footnotes  Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valeriy Chybineyev

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. AGF foreign language sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs More Pronouns "Chybineyev" is a ten-letter word. We get it, means he himself in English. Some info on what killed him would be good, too, if known (and an entry at Deaths in 2022, if feeling ambitious). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I worked on the pronouns. I've added what I saw in sources about his death. Not sure if the exact manner is known (publicly or otherwise) at this point. TJMSmith (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Everything seems to be in order here. Notable war death. Yakikaki (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Length (almost 400 words of prose) Formatting  Deployment of Footnotes  Coverage . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Slava Ukraini. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Mears

 * Could use some work on referencing, particularly the Personal life section (he got married 4 times!). --PFHLai (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like referencing issues have been fixed. Thriley (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Deployment of Footnotes . Length (1000+ words of prose) . Coverage . Formatting . This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Winter Paralympics

 * Oppose lots of similar events have happened, and I don't see why we should single this one out. Besides, it's all part of the wider story of the invasion, which is already on ITN. Banedon (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russia and Belarus have been expelled from loads of sports events, and this one is generating a similar amount of coverage to any other (e.g. Russia, including all its club teams, being banned from all UEFA/FIFA football matches has generated more coverage). So not sure why it's more newsworthy/ITN-worthy. On the other hand, it's much more news than the Winter Olympics closing on 20 February (but the crap and outdatedness of other ITN stories isn't a reason to post this). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - effectively part of an Ongoing event (currently a blurb which will roll down to Ongoing eventualoy), and we don't post every individual update. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we can include this in the blurb on tomorrow's opening ceremony.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first time in history when IOC unilaterally expelled a country from the olympics over a non-sports related issue (i.e. an issue that wasn't related to doping or financing the olympics), right? If so, this is a huge precedent and a 180 degree turnaround to the previous policy of keeping politics out of sport. Hence, my support Daikido (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Daiko. Also, as much as I hate the invasion, this is incredibly unfair to the atheletes. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There have been many unprecedented decisions, in the last week. The specifics of Russia/Belarus being banned are more components of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and 2022 Winter Paralympics, respectively, which will likely both be included, by Friday, when the Paralympics start. — <span style="">Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Unnecessary content fork. STSC (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Requesting a pin at the "Ongoing" tab, i.e. Russian Invasion of Ukraine as an ongoing act, as seen by conflict dating back to 2014.--1233 ( T / C） 17:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we can simplify this and simply say "The 2022 Winter Paralympics have begun in Beijing." Propork3455 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - unprecedented. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment this nomination seems redundant to today's ITN post for the Paralympics above (which is an ITNR event, and will get posted). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint (March edition)
I'll repeat (and slightly modify) my suggestion from February 28. As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics. Should it really be that way? I've changed my suggestion from linking to the article about the territories invaded (Occupied territories of Ukraine) to the article about the financial crisis (2022 Russian financial crisis). Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Event is significant enough to warant a large blurb. – Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a major news event and there's undoubtedly a lot to it, but it is a link to the full page, which has all of the information, rather than a slightly-extended blurb. If it's going to be extended, what do you include and leave out? — <span style="">Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What are we doing? Are we updating the blurb and bumping it back to the top of the ticker? Or are we just amending it?--WaltCip- (talk)  14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And why do we need to repeat a section from Feb 28 that is still open?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just closed discussion of the "" down below . This can be the discussion location for the blurb. -- RobLa (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and bump this back to the top, replacing the other Ukraine/Russia blurb. This is the most in the news of the items featured, so should have the most prominent position in the ITN box. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC


 * Support blurb although I think the best possible blurb would the blurb mixed with altblurb2. Restating my original support from February 28. Flameperson (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to state that I oppose any bumping to the back of ITN. If that happens I would support the article going straight to Ongoing Flameperson (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per User:Flameperson <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not a newsticker, and there is little to really update on this or give extra weight to. This will be in ongoing when it is time so readers will still see it. --M asem (t) 15:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not update the ITN blurb itself rather than forcing the reader to search for something relevant and informative among the small-type headings on the left side of the page? Our continued display of the obviously outdated (and boring) ITN blurb does not serve readers one bit. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First we are not a newspaper and readers coming here to find news of the invasion are going to the wrong place. Second, a short phrase in ongoing will standout more that this long blurb if readers are scanning the ITN box for this. --M asem (t) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentatively support But I don't think we should set the precedent of posting the same blurb (russia invades ukraine) twice, hence, I propose the following blurb: As unprecedented Western sanctions cause an economic crisis in Russia, the country continues it's invasion of Ukraine, encountering widespread resistance Daikido (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb4 added by Daikido due to previous statements made by me in this section Flameperson (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb - the first proposed blurb above is the best worded blurb, easy to understand and to the point. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing every single day we're considering one more mor changes to this blurb just pull the blurb and park it in ongoing and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The ITN blurb points to the event; just read the related articles for any updates. STSC (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb is fine as it is, and where it is. We are not a news ticker.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial support I think the first suggested blurb and altblurb3 is fine because they relate to things that have clearly happened and probably aren't going to change any time soon (western sanctions, UN condemnation, Russian economic crisis). The other blurb's all seem to be getting to wrapped up in the details of the conflict on the ground which could quickly become out of date.Llewee (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per STSC & Pawnkingthree. The current blurb is succinct and to the point. Anyone wanting further information can go to the linked article. While I fully share the near universal indignation over these events, it must be remembered that we are not a news ticker nor are we to use the project to channel our (fully justified) outrage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree here. We probably all agree what's happening to Ukraine is inhumane and there is justified outrage over it but this is still an encyclopedia with a strong neutrality function, and trying to give excessive coverage of this conflict, compared to numerous ones in Africa, the Middle East,, or elsewhere, shows our bias. We know this will go to a blurb and stay for a while, no need to be upset.over it not getting more ITN coverage. --M asem (t) 20:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb IV. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – The current editorial configuration of Wikipedia may be the techie dream of the ultimate in internet delivery vehicles, but from a reader's point of view it's over-engineered and unnecessarily complicated. In a way it reminds me of the Edsel, a design based on tons of brainy market research, but which proved to be the most ill-advised car in U.S. automotive history. – Sca (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC) –→
 * Portal:Current_events is complex but seems quite effective. For example, today's page was created automatically by a bot and has now been populated by 35 bullet points across a variety of fields including sports, science and the "special military operation".  The key difference is that editors are actually allowed to edit it.  The problem with ITN is that it is paralysed by protection and so little gets done. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a proposal to have a little "Portal:Current Events • Nominate an article" the way DYK has "Archive • Start a new article • Nominate an article"? I feel like that would help a lot of people actually find this portal, because the sidebar is just such a massively long list of links it sort of just disappears into the visual background noise. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. ITN does currently link to Portal:Current_events but hides the link behind the word Ongoing so most readers will miss it.  The link should be surfaced so that readers are given a good alternative when it's so clear that much is missing from ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I... never even noticed "Ongoing" (or "Recent Deaths" for that matter) was a link because there's just so many links in the line and the bolded + browser visited color + blue ITN background combination just for some reason isn't scanning as a link to my brain. But that's on me. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose IV which frame the issue as West vs Russia. C933103 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. In my opinion, the Sumatran earthquake currently has undue weight, with the top bullet, 12 words, and a photo. In my opinion, the Ukraine invasion is clearly the bigger news item. I support any attempts to increase the weight of the Ukraine invasion by adding words, adding photos, or moving it to the top bullet. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurbs are always given in reverse chrono order to avoid any bias. --M asem (t) 20:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose IV under any circumstances - Dreadful non-neutral blurb. Wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece for editorial outrage.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, how about supporting alt1, alt2 or alt3? – Sca (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Much better blurb than the one we have now. I prefer the first one. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose change to blurb. How many times do we have to keep arguing the same thing? The blurb will roll down the page until it hits ongoing. Or we can also move it to ongoing now, if that's preferred. What we should not do, and what we have never done for any blurb ever - even Covid - is to keep revamping it and tweaking it to update for the daily changes in the situation. That's exactly what ongoing is for, and this war, while tragic for all concerned, is not so far elevated above all the other wars and events in the world that we need to carve out a brand new rule for it. I suggest we start speedy closing these nominations soon because they are generating more heat than light. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull, Commence Ongoing Put it in front of COVID. Or after COVID. Either way, it'll have the prominence it so apparently needs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Ongoing As much as it's not a normal move as things stand the current format of the Ukrainian Invasion piece is going to be way too contentious as far as people requesting several and frequent changes. I think a move to Ongoing right now is the best way to handle this. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How Panglossian of you. Clearly, "all is for the best" in the "best of all possible worlds." Furthermore, as has long been widely known, "Whatever is, is right." – Sca (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support any of the proposed blurbs, with a preference for the first. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support any proposed blurb, and bump this back to the top. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose IV per WaltCip and others - not only does the blurb look like a Russia vs West war, the sentence structure kind of suggests Western sanctions are the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. And with so much gp confusion over Putin's motives, you never know who'll believe it. Kingsif (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb III. The other altblurbs editorialize too much ("West vs. Russia!" despite this conflict being more complicated, "widespread resistance!" despite widespread, though costly, Russian advances). Altblurb 3 is a factual, representative of a worldwide view, since it is the UN General Assembly, while also providing somewhat of an update. According to Emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, these special sessions are relatively rare, with the first 9 being between 1956 and 1982, the 10th, having 17 passed resolutions between 1997 and 2018, though with a nearly 10-year gap between 1998 and 2018. However, a link to the resolution itself, United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 and/or the session article Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly should be added. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Sca (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – The No. 1 story worldwide. The old ITN blurb is egregiously outdated. Favor alt3 as the most informative, but alt1 or alt2 would be fine. too. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt3. Per previous discussions, I do think we need to update the blurb, as the war has moved on from the initial invasion. The UN resolution is the biggest of the diplomatic responses, and it's hard to pick out an individual military event to highlight, so that seems to be the best option for a blurb update. Oppose the other suggestions as WP:EDITORIAL. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In this instance I have to disagree with my modest friend. Alt1 and alt2 aren't editorializing. There's nothing POV about "widespread" – it's meant purely as a descriptive geographic term. Of course it has military or political ramifications, but that's simply a result of what has actually taken place on the ground in the last 10 days. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3, and marking as ready. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support any of the blurbs, per above. We have many MP-ready articles related to the invasion article and we should link at least one of them. Davey2116 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'd prefer ALT3 but any of these blurbs is fine. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alt blurb III seemed like the least controversial. -- RobLa (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo? -- I've added a suggested photo from the Battle of Kyiv (2022) article. My condolenses to Shane Warne's friends, family, and fans; however, it seems to me that his death shouldn't overshadow this invasion. I may not have chosen the best photo with File:Russian bombardment of Kyiv TV Tower.jpg, but I think one of the better photos we have should be used. -- RobLa (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNPICT, the picture is generally associated with the top-most blurb, and blurbs are listed chronogically. Both Warne and the Paralympics are the same date.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Warne pic. as currently paginated is way too big for an ITN mug. And obviously, a Ukraine war photo would be of greater interest than a mere mug anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who helped make the updated blurb possible. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this have bumped the item to the top, over Warne? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The condemnation is from March 2, fresher than the February 24 invasion, but still staler than both March 4 events. It's not about what's hotter. Never has been. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given some of my earliest edits to the pages that became Portal:Current events, I would appreciate not being lectured by relative newcomers like you (User:InedibleHulk) nor User:Masem about the history of how current events have been handled on English Wikipedia, and I certainly don't think that any of the three of us are qualified to know what the 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 people (or bots or whatever) who currently load "Main page" of English Wikipedia into their browser each day in 2022, per the stats on "Main Page". It could be that thousands (if not millions) of them use it as a news ticker.  Certainly, I'll glance at the "In the news" box from time-to-time to see what's going on the world.  As User:TZubiri is suggesting, "Screen real estate is important", and we should consider what is important to feature on the homepage of English Wikipedia.  What are people visiting Wikipedia to learn? -- RobLa (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember even talking to you before, and have no interest in lecturing you now. I don't know why people come here, you're right. Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my cranky tone, User:InedibleHulk, and sorry for accusing you specifically for "lecturing" me. The topic of how we should deliver Current events has long been a subject of debate (since well before the advent of Wikinews). When you stated "It's not about what's hotter. Never has been", that got under my skin a little bit (especially after User:Masem's comment below).  In my mind, the "In The News" section seems to have been about drawing people to the most important articles about current events, and taking advantage of the fact that both editors and readers of Wikipedia are bound to be suddenly drawn to important news.  However, like I said, every one of those 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews (per day) is for a different reason, and it's hard to know why. -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries,, nice to memorably meet you. I also think that's the point here, important current events. But variety is cool, too, and some people find Shane Warne's death and the Paralympics important. Maybe over three million, maybe fewer, but some. A number of others are almost 100% tuned into the war, day in and day out, and that's a fine choice. I don't think a portrait of an Australian is going to overshadow the favoured link for these people, only maybe temporarily distract them. A second later, they'll have literally more info on the Ukraine deal than they can digest. Did you see it got a video clip here earlier? I'll never say "never" again, but I don't remember anything else getting that special shine since 2013 (or whenever the cat dragged me in). Besides, this time, the UN resolution is the event, and (in my opinion) if you've seen one assembly hall or non-binding document, you've "seen them all". See you around! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggested as error - by User:TZubiri at Main Page/Errors. I'm confused by the changes proposed there, and disinclined to move the discussion over to that page.  Given that many more Ukrainians have died in combat since Shane Warne's death, I'm also disappointed in the process that led to his picture overshadowing the events in Ukraine.  -- RobLa (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a newsticker, again. We are not posting important news story, but instead featuring articles that are in the news that are also representative of high quality articles. --M asem (t) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As I suggested in my cranky comment above, we don't know why English Wikipedia gets 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 pageviews per day on the homepage. But can be reasonably sure it's less than the 10,000,000+ pageviews per day that it used to get. Can we please make sure that the "In The News" section stays relevant to English speakers all over the world, so that the number doesn't continue to decline, and Wikipedia fade into irrelevance? -- RobLa (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Screen real estate is important. But in order to avoid conflict with the rejected proposal to include the UN General assembly I propose the next most popular blurb, the original one. I think the other page is more appropriate because consensus has already been successfully established, now it's just a matter of implementing that consensus (a legislative to executive division if you will)--TZubiri (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per this BBC report, the invasion is still on going (as of the 6th of March UTC). I'm going to follow User:TZubiri's suggestion and switch back to a very minor modification to my original blurb "Russia continues their invasion of Ukraine, leading to international sanctions and a financial crisis in Russia." I modified the " " parameter of the "ITN candidate" template accordingly.  -- RobLa (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've undone your unilateral change. There is no consensus to bump the blurb, and no consensus to alter the blurb any further. Stephen 08:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted by User:Stephen, who seems to believe there was no consensus, and that I acted unilaterally (despite following User:TZubiri's suggestion). -- RobLa (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Perhaps they saw a problem in the order of the events? Whatever I'm backing off here, a good attempt was made at following the will of the votes, but with so many hands and votes it's not always perfect, it seems sensible to stick with what was originally published, it is the stable version after all, and there was some support for that blurb. It'll be changed by another proposal eventually, hopefully another event or a transition to the ongoing section. --TZubiri (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Echo of Moscow
109.252.212.73 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - effectively part of an Ongoing event (currently a blurb which will roll down to Ongoing eventualoy), and we don't post every individual update. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * War is one thing and the crackdown on the freedom of speech is another!109.252.212.73 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. WaltCip- (talk)  13:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * War is what has been going on in Ukraine, for the last week. The crackdown on the freedom of speech in Russia is a different front that has been ongoing for years. Both of which are covered in 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Media freedom in Russia. — <span style="">Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument is not that Wikipedia is a place to right great wrongs, but rather that Russian increasing its suppression domestically is hardly something fully within the scope of the article of Russian invading a foreign country, even though connection is obvious. C933103 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support We've posted it when Russia closed the Memorial. Echo is so much bigger in Russia. Most people havent even heard of the memorial until the closure, but Echo is a household name. They were also pretty much the last major domestic oppositionary media operating in the country. Hence, my support. Daikido (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amakuru. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the context of what has been going on, i.e. Kyiv TV Tower being hit by a missile as part of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Echo of Moscow being blocked from the air and closing, as has happened to numerous stations, is not quite the same. — <span style="">Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Insignificant event. STSC (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We posted "the closing of Stand News of Hong Kong". We also posted "the closing of Citizen News of Hong Kong". This event here is just as important. Tradedia talk 20:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor-in-chief is appealing against the closure order, while in Hong Kong the editors were arrested and charged by the police. STSC (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support for Tradedia Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tradedia. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tradedia. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tradedia. C933103 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tradedia. Thriley (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Amakuru. Characteristic of the repressive autocracy of Kim Jong Putin's Russia, but just a footnote to the larger war story. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose of the five most recent Russia/Ukraine ITN nominations, this is the one that is the least ITN-worthy. The other noms are about a country being invaded, one radio station closing is nothing in comparison to this. In Hong Kong, it was one of the most noteworthy events at that time, but that is certainly not the case here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Thermobaric weapon

 * Oppose as WP:SPECULATION. They've been accused, but it's not been confirmed, and certainly not clear what the impact and newsworthiness of this is. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if confirmed - since from the article it's hardly the first time thermobaric weapons have been used in war. Banedon (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - effectively part of an Ongoing event (currently a blurb which will roll down to Ongoing eventualoy), and we don't post every individual update. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am unsure if we should have posted this even if this was somehow 100% confirmed (is this the first time this type of weapon has been used in combat?; i'm pretty sure the US used them against the Taliban in afghanistan). but this is not 100%, not by any stretch. We can't just post speculation, no matter how good it makes us feel about ourselves. Daikido (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alleged, and insignificant. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the context of highlighting it, while there are many other more widespread facets of the invasion, I think it's less noteworthy on its own (if it is confirmed/verifed). — <span style="">Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth Duberstein

 * Comment: Several CN tags.  Spencer T• C 13:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still 8 {cn} tags in the Political career section alone. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farrah Forke

 * Support Bloom6132 did a great job on this article, which I have also worked on a bit. Bloom padded out the previously incomplete filmography and provided a lot of sources. Article is looking very good now. --ObservantSpectator (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced and not a stub. TJMSmith (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Ladd Jr.

 * Support Article is good. RIP to an entertainment legend jonas (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and well-sourced. Engineerchange (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrey Sukhovetsky

 * Question are we really going to create loads of articles on Ukranian generals known mostly for dying in this conflict, and then post them all to RD? This is the third one I've noticed in the last 2-3 days. Either way, too short for now, regardless of the wider issue of notability. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note The other two were an air force colonel who was shot down, and a combat engineer who sacrified themselves. I would think a general getting killed is quite rare, as there won't be too many 2-star or higher generals, or division commanders around. Also, nobody has really complained (to my knowledge) about the stream of sportspeople who are mundane domestic league players who die all the time (from a variety of sports in different countries) Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Articles meets quality standards. Objections for inclusion on the basis that they are only known for their participation in this conflict have some merit, but should be discussed broadly as the same issue applies to sportspeople among others, and until that discussion produces a consensus our current rules support this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This wikibio has slightly over 300 words, marginally long enough to not be considered a stub. Can more be added? I may be more supportive if there were more to read about him. Referencing seems okay, except that "the most senior Russian officer killed in action to date" needs to be sourced. --PFHLai (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced bit about him being "the most senior Russian officer killed in action to date" has been removed from the wikipage. This wikibio is now <300 words long -- in stub territory. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent edits have brought this back to 300+ words and this article is now longer than the usual stubs. So length is no longer a concern. Footnotes and other formatting do not appear to be problematic. This wikibio meets the requirements and is therefore READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Autherine Lucy

 * Support Article is good. No orange tags or cn tags in it. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Detailed article, I'm aware it doesn't matter for RD's but quite unique compared to a lot of the life stories that get covered here, maybe it would be worth putting it up for a blurb?--Llewee (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of cn tags, and it doesn't really give much detail about what she did for the remaining 60 years of her life, after she ceased activism? Stephen 04:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A couple of cn tags. Tradedia talk 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still two {cn} tags in this wikibio, which need to be fixed before this nom can proceed. Please fix. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is still one {cn} tag left -- for the unreferenced back half of a paragraph about her expulsion from University of Alabama, a key event in her life story. Perhaps those few sentences need to be rewritten with new sources and footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Hughes

 * Support Solid article. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good enough, marked as ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support interesting article--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Good article with enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleksandr Oksanchenko

 * Is there any pre-obit coverage?   GreatCaesarsGhost   02:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are 2 currently in the article:, . There's a possibility that other sources exist in Ukrainian and Russian-language outlets. TJMSmith (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well sourced. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any info on what he did as a deputy of the city council, please? This seems to be a gap in coverage. --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Length (378 words) Formatting  Deployment of Footnotes  (AGF on non-English refs). This wikibio is READY for RD to me. I have added a line on his party affiliation when he served on the Myrhorod City Council. If someone can add info on his constituency (if he had one), that would be nice. --PFHLai (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 70+ Ukrainian soldiers killed in Okhtyrka

 * Oppose - An airstrike outwith a war is notable, an airstrike during a war is just a (small) part of the war. -- KTC (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per KTC. We usually post natural disasters, explosions and shootings in peaceful regions with a substantial death toll, but airstrikes during wars and shootings in countries where they occur frequently are examples of what we don't post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing There are obviously numerous incidents being reported from the fighting in Ukraine. The way ITN handles news which is generating many and varied reports is to put it into the ongoing section under a suitably broad heading.  That's why the COVID-19 pandemic is still there.  There has been a war in Ukraine since 2014 and so this is a similar, long-running campaign. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing it's an ongoing event, and putting it on ongoing gives it a proper place on ITN, instead of being bunched in the middle of less important/now well out of the news item. Either that, or sticky the invasion at the top of ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Is it possible to replace the blurb, which hasn't rolled off yet, with a sticky?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Put to Ongoing There's going to be a lot of events in Ukraine over the next few weeks (or months), and posting every update from the war is going to get make things too crowded on ITN. By placing it on ongoing (like the COVID-19 pandemic) it gives readers a quick and easy access to events going on in Ukraine, without having to constantly update ITN. Canuck 89 (Chat with me)  11:47, March 1, 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant article is currently linked on the main page. We can move it to ongoing when it rolls off the blurb list.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this update, but support the wider principle. I do think it would be good to update the blurb with developments in the war, but this airstrike is just one incident in a much wider conflict. Dropping the blurb down to ongoing seems counterproductive. We would be better off adding something to highlight fighting is going on in Kyiv and Kharkiv. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Switch to ongoing now - this invasion is going to constantly have updates that are not captured by the current blurb (nor should they be attempted), and the ticker is moving pretty slowly. I say we drop the blurb and move it to ongoing now. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that the Ongoing line is buried in the weeds and so lacks appropriate prominence. We should reorganise to put the Ongoing line first when the listed items are major items, as now. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current blurb is fine if you want this in ongoing then pull the blurb. According to Ukranian propaganda their brave soliders are killing 1000 Russians a day so I don't see the notability of 70+ --LaserLegs (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well no-one seems to want to WP:IAR and keep this at the top of ITN. Or do anything helpful that might actually show that Wikipedia isn't just treating this differently to other blurbs, because it's way more important and has way more longevity and news coverage than anything else on ITN right now (minus the COVID-19 pandemic being in ongoing, which is only kept there by an IAR). We should invoke IAR and add more content on the invasion to ITN, because that is what's in the news worldwide right now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support pulling the blurb and adding this to ongoing immediately but strongly oppose adding a box on the top because it's still just a regional military conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Ongoing, This is not like a disaster or ..., many things may happen day by say. Alex-h (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I increasingly think a box on the top showing the range of ongoing events in the war makes sense: individual battles, anti-war protests, etc. None are likely to end soon. The anti-war protests in Russia alone come close to meriting an ITN item, for example. Blythwood (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, we don't need a box for a regional conflict. We didn't need one for COVID-19 either. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would reject the argument that ongoing is better, worse, or more suited to the event. There seems to be some attitude that the BAU process trivializes important events, which I cannot track.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Switch to Ongoing. As an IAR case, this seems to make more sense to have it there than looking like we're out of date by having it below other items in the blurb ticker. I oppose constantly putting it back to the top with new updates like the one proposed though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Casualties are a tragic reality in war. No need to move to ongoing until the current blurb drops off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This war is currently the biggest ongoing story in the world so I don't see why these events can't be covered more. The destruction of the An-225 or the (possible) destruction of the memorial of the Babi Yar massacre are things that would likely get covered in ITN during normal times so I don't see why the ongoing war should mean we ignore it. It's not like there are a half dozen other items that would get bumped. After all, the Olympics ended more than a week ago. Perhaps a limit could be set of only 2 items related to the war at a time? Anyway, just wanted to say that and now back into the ether I go. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the ongoing war should mean we ignore it - to put it bluntly, you expect stuff to get destroyed and people killed in wars. And those things happen so frequently in wars that most individual events don't make news, it all blurs into one, and updating on each one would be impossible. I don't completely advocate for this getting a blurb but something needs updating. While ITN is really capturing pageviews and hoping to retain a few as editors, it is also a service ("hey you've seen X in the news and want to find out more? Click here!"), so let's serve. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Could we link the timeline or list of battles if we put it in ongoing? Something like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (battles)". Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, I would have a slight preference for the timeline being added. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Just wait for the posting of "Ukraine war" in ongoing section. STSC (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)