Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2021

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: Marie-Claire Blais

 * Oppose orange–tagged. A lot of work is still needed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Article updates have been completed. Orange box no longer exists and article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oriol Bohigas

 * Nom. comment Done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well written and referenced article. KittenKlub (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jim Warren (computer specialist)

 * Oppose - Far from ready. "Early life", "Political career", "Education" and "Awards" sections are entirely unsourced. Other sections with entire paragraphs without a single source.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcus Lamb
now down to one CN tag, which shouldn't be enough to stop an article from appearing on ITN RD. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - A few unsourced paragraphs. I believe it's easy to fix. Not far from ready.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several {cn} tags. Things like infidelity and health issues really need to be properly sourced. Please add refs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Therapyisgood! I got rid of the last {cn} tag, too.--PFHLai (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Dwyer

 * Support GA status - a glance through supports that assessment. Canadianerk (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support GA, more than good enough for RD. Exact death date has not been released, so November 2021 is fine as a death date for the article. Marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Maher (journalist)

 * Comment - Bibliography section is unsourced. Apart from this, in my point of view, it's good to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the bibliography is OK I think, as ISBN numbers have now been supplied which verify the books' existence. Just a couple of issues for me - firstly, her being a feminist is not explicitly mentioned in the body, so needs a citation, and secondly the sentence saying she was "part of a group" doesn't say what the group was. On another note, attaching some years to the "firsts" mentioned, for context, would be a definite plus. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry- I apparently forgot to finish a sentence in it. I'll have to go back and put the dates to the firsts though..  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 10:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feminist is also implicit when it states she founded the Irish Women's Liberation Movement and several of the citations explicitly call her a feminist. Firsts are a problem for me right now - none of the articles about her give specific dates. However, as stated I had missed a sentence - I was putting the links on the other names and got distracted.   &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter  — Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks well-referenced to me (I added a few but all from sources already cited, confirming verifiability of the claims). Innisfree987 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siobhan Cattigan

 * Support Sourcing is okay. Seems good for R/D. Pyramids09 (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Bingham

 * Comment the source for his death in the article and linked here is one that's blacklisted on Wikipedia for spam abuse, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources. This should be replaced with an actual reliable source for his death. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment replaced by Government of Tasmania. I would like to point out that the Examiner can be freely posted without any errors or tags. I also severely doubt that the newspaper can be trusted for an announcement of a death.KittenKlub (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my mistake, was confusing Examiner.com.au (the Australian site) with Examiner.com (which is the one on the blacklist). So it was also fine originally. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support all looks well sourced, and looks more than good enough content for RD. Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - generally all good, but that coat of arms section is rather odd-looking, particularly in the absence of being able to see said arms, and I don't think is really necessary in this article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't show those arms, because they are (C) College of Arms, and will be for another 70 years. I've removed the section. KittenKlub (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did check the source, it specifically said the image was copyrighted - it's a stretch on a technicality, but if an editor would like the keep the section based on this decision, contacting the College for more information on the arms' copyright status could be worth a try. Canadianerk (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: Per Joseph2302. Canadianerk (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted - my concern above about the Coat of Arms section has been addressed, and all others are in support. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

RD: Sirivennela Seetharama Sastry

 * Oppose - Far from ready. Orange tagged and very under sourced.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Kennedy

 * Support article is GA, which is more than good enough to meet RD standards. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As Joseph said, this is a high quality article. Slam dunk. KittenKlub (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Sillett

 * Support much improved. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Early life section is unsourced.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, I totally missed that. Refs added. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Honors section is covered by references in the body text, and all of the claims there are referenced above in the article.  Spencer T• C 00:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Demeter

 * Posted to RD.   Spencer T• C 02:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Lionel Messi wins the Ballon d'Or for a record seventh time

 * Leaning oppose. I don't think this is especially significant in the long term, and we're not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only extending his own record incrementally, already had a lead, nothing suddenly "broken". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A huge lead of ... 1? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I defer to you on football, but it seemed the NYT said Cruyff had three, halfway to six. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ronaldo has five. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should have been Lewandowski. But seriously, football is a team game and I don't think these kind of individual awards (of which there are many) are that significant. And as mentioned above, he already held the record anyway. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not top news in many newspapers/news websites. And it's been a Messi/Ronaldo fan show for last 10 years anyway, gone are the days of them voting sensibly for players. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that important, this is probably routine news at this point. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: LaMarr Hoyt

 * Support - Fully sourced. Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Parag Agrawal to head Twitter as Jack Dorsey resigns

 * Oppose perhaps DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine business news. Companies change CEO frequently. Chrisclear (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What is a "Stanford-IITB grad", and why is it mentioned when the phrase is not included in the blurb? Chrisclear (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's an alumni of Stanford University and IIT Bombay (neither of which are relevant to a blurb here). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have boldly removed the irrelevant information from the heading. Chrisclear (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose change of CEO is not ITN-worthy. And article about him is nowhere near good enough either, too short and almost no information in it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is well below what I would expect of a main page linked article. The "Career" section starts in 2019 as the earliest date; I can't believe that a company like twitter would name, as their CEO, any person who's CV was only two years long.  I would expect something far more comprehensive for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Barbados becomes a republic

 * Comment We already published Mason's election as the first female president of the Republic, so I would not include it in the blurb. I think it would be more generalized and more of a country issue than a "someone gets elected" issue. But I won't strongly oppose it either. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record: the posted wording in October was Ahead of Barbados becoming a republic, Sandra Mason is elected as the country's first president. Brandmeistertalk  15:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – As I understand it, Barbados already was independent (since 1966), and this move merely means the British monarch will no longer be titular head of state. Thus, just a formality. (Unless I'm missing something – a distinct possibility – I'm not sure how this affects political life in Barbados.) – Sca (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Australia had a constitutional crisis in 1975 when the royal governor of the Queen of Australia fired the prime minister due to an approaching government shutdown. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most heads of state outside of the Americas are figureheads (notwithstanding the occasional exceptions such as SMW mentioned), whether a president or monarch. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Question as this is a change of head of state (from Elizabeth II to Sandra Mason), surely this is ITNR? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a change in the form of government which takes effect now, as Barbados is no longer a Commonwealth realm. Brandmeistertalk  15:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which also has the consequence of the head of government changing, which is why I think this nomination should be considered ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment we already posted the election of the new president so the blurb should just be about becoming a republic. --Tone 16:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is an important development. Maybe you should rewrite the blurb to make Republicanism in Barbados, the main article. Another reason is the minimum quality requirement. Barbados is an enormous article and is "as good as it gets." KittenKlub (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted the election, but a country changing its form of government is uncommon(especially without a violent revolution). I agree with Alsoriano97 that we don't need to mention the first female status again. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support although Republicanism in Barbados seems like a better target than Barbados, as it has much more detail on the event in question. Technically, she takes office on 30 November, so should probably wait until tomorrow to post (as she hasn't actually become the head of state until then). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a rewritten blurb with Republicanism in Barbados as the bolded article, but wait until 30 November per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Tommorow Historic and notable event, and technically ITNR, though I'm not sure how much it applies. Regardless, it qualifies on it's own merits, something like this doesn't happen every day let alone very few decades. Support altblurb with Republicanism in Barbados as target. BSMRD (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb and wait until tomorrow. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and post at midnight. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A notable event in Barbados, support goes for the altblurb and I agree that we should wait until tomorrow, when the change officially takes place. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R as head of state change This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Magdalena Andersson new PM

 * It's been a wild week in Sweden. The article is sufficient, but the process by which she became Prime Minister is rather messy; I'm not sure if we should (or even if we can) cover it in a blurb, but if someone can come up with something less bland, it bears explanation.  She was actually elected on November 24, was scheduled to take office on November 26, but in the intervening 48 hours her coalition suffered a loss of supply vote, causing the Green Party to withdraw from the coalition, causing a collapse of the government.  She and her party then spent three days organizing a single-party government, after which she was elected a second time to the PM post.  She still has never been formally appointed to the post, FWIW.  That is still forthcoming.  Not sure how to blurbify that, but the process is a major part of the news story here. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * She will as far as I understand it become PM tomorrow. And this is now a final vote, which can not become null and void. She now is PM elect.BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: So perhaps we should slot this news for tomorrow instead when she has been formally instated (don't wanna jinx things here!) and a blurb can be: "After a politically turbulent week, twice-elected Magdalena Andersson becomes Sweden's first female Prime Minister". <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait until she actually becomes PM, as before that, the blurb is incorrect. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb per this RTE article. The altblurb is more precise, more unusual and thus likely to be more interesting to our readers, and is worded so that it does not require waiting until whenever she actually assumes office. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed Prime Minister to Prime minister-designate; Prime Minister can be restored once she actually takes office. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb (as explained above). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 which can be changed to ALT0 when she actually takes office. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until tomorrow when we can say she is the first female PM. It will be a much less confusing blurb. No need to spill over the messiness from our Riksdag onto ITN. Besides, she has already been on ITN as 'elected', better to have a 'become' blurb this time. Keep it simple. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Add Just listened to the news on Swedish Radio (our equivalent of BBC), even those reporters signed off with the caveat about Andersson's election: "Unless something unforeseen happens...". Nobody's taking anything for granted right now. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why ITN cannot and should not be a news ticker.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Topically significant, but per cart wait 'til it's offcial. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Article is short, but sufficient.  Altblurb captures the unusual nature of the election in a neutral and encyclopedic way.  Agnostic on timing (now or after it becomes official), if we do post it early I like Tlhsobus's plan of changing the link when she becomes official.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But let's not link Sweden per MOS:OVERLINK. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously. But the wording works, otherwise.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now removed the wikilink from Sweden.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's wait. I'd rather have Barbados atop ITN tomorrow, then a simple blurb about the new PM taking office on ITN the day after when the dust settles in Sweden.--PFHLai (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When it does become official, a corrective blurb alluding to her sudden resignation last week would be helpful for reader comprehension. – Sca (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ok, this time it worked, and she's been PM for about an hour now. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Done d-d-d-deal. Favor alt3. Suggest this pic. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ALT2 as she never actually became PM the first time. It was scheduled for 26 November, but she resigned on 24 November. ALT0 is correct, so should be used instead. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. So I've revised Alt2 accordingly (above), and favor it once again. Thanks. – Sca (talk)
 * ALT2 now looks fine to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the "In Sweden," in the blurb a bit redundant since "the Swedish parliament." comes later in the sentence? Also, Sweden's governing body isn't called parliament, it's called Riksdag. I think we use the correct name for a country's government. Better blubs would be: Magdalena Andersson, who resigned suddenly on November 24 after one day as PM-designate, is elected Prime Minister by the Swedish Riksdag. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart  <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so modified into Alt3 above, which YT now faves instead – tho Alt2 would still be OK. (More readers will understand "Swedish parliament" than "Riksdag.") – Sca (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still a long and cumbersome blurb. Do we really put the party designation (Social Democrat) in head of government blurbs? That didn't come up before. (Do we say "Democrat Joe Biden"?) Also, "suddenly" isn't needed since the "one day" says it all, and it doesn't sound like an appropriate word to use here. Sounds too much like "Ooops, I dropped the PM position". New blurb added. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, all of these ALTs should probably use "24 November" not "November 24", as Sweden uses dmy not mdy according to sources on Date format by country. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are anglifying this and use 'parliament' instead of Riksdag, we might as well go all in and use mdy. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except mdy is not "anglifying", it's Americanising. Most of the English speaking world use dmy... Like England... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to point out that at the English Wikipedia we're not writing for Swedes (or for Rutabagas, either). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'll politely remind you Canada and Ontario are both every bit as independently anglified as English soil itself, as far as the royal-parliamentary-arcane complex goes, and we say it doesn't matter if America just so happens to agree dates look weird backward. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to point out that at the English Wikipedia we're not writing for Swedes Well this is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia, so we don't need to adopt a date format used in the US and almost nowhere else. MOSDATETIES applies to this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of English Wikipedia readers in Ghana, Kenya and South Africa, too, if Canada seems too American to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, Canada use dmy as well as mdy, and all the others mentioned also use any date format. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * New Brunswick uses dmy, that hardly counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A teapot tempest. If that's what's delaying this, let's just say "who resigned a week earlier after one day as PM-designate...." ("Suddenly" is rendered redundant by "After one day," etc.) OK? – Sca (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: – Cf. — Die Sozialdemokratin Magdalena Andersson (Bild) ist zum zweiten Mal innerhalb weniger Tage zur Ministerpräsidentin von Schweden gewählt worden. ("The Social Democrat Magdalena Andersson (pictured) has been elected Prime Minister of Sweden for the second time in a few days.") – Sca (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think the delay is because ITN wants to give the Barbados blurb a bit more time as top spot. A far more important event than our (Swedish) teapot election squabbles. I don't mind, I can wait. :-) <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Barbados, DYK that Rihanna gets in excess of 10,000 Wikiwords? – Sca (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Andersson is officially the PM 1, 2 --Vacant0 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Five hours on, it's high time to post this. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted. I used dmy instead of mdy as per the above. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Gulpilil

 * Oppose on quality. Cn tags that need to be fixed, the "Filmography" and "Awards" sections have no sources, as do several lines. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For reasons too complex to explain here, more respectful articles about this actor's death will be naming him as David Dalaithngu. Anyone trying to improve the article needs to consider that when seeking sources. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what the abc source given here uses. But all of his credits are as Gulpilil? Particularly the 2021 My Name is Gulpilil? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices describes the practice, and notes the logistics are indeed harder in wider society. Stephen 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Per WP:BLP, which also applies to the recently dead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support A significant figure in Australian performing arts. I have cleaned up and added some citations, other editors have been adding citations and generally working to improve the article. It appears we don't need to change the article name at this time. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Highly notable, and the article is of sufficient quality at this stage, although I have further additions when I have time and there is always room for improvement. The name is a bit of a quandary, but that discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Please contribute. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As per above, not an expert on the concerns regarding naming above, but I would suggest referring to him to the name his family requests for him to be referred, as it would most likely be posted during the mourning period. Article is of enough quality, with sources considered, and is notable enough to be included in RD. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted as David Dalaithngu. --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Brian Kelly Resigns as Notre Dame head coach to take new job at LSU

 * Oppose for obvious reasons - we don't routinely cover business dealings, and that would include school sports staffing changes. --M asem (t) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't routinely cover these things, but this seems to be an exceptional case in my view. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Geaux Tigers! Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * *sad "Go Irish" noises* — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sports transactions are not going to be posted to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This a "news item" about a routine change in sporting coach, and therefore not sufficiently notable to appear in ITN. Chrisclear (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Really? sporting transactions, be they star signings in any sport or changes in coaches or club presidents, are not and should not be ITNR. Snow close._-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post sports transaction, if we didn't post Lionel Messi leaving Barcelona (which we were right not to), we aren't going to post this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jolene Unsoeld

 * Comment - Some few missing refs, but not so hard to fix.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No more {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emily Mkamanga

 * Support long enough for RD, citations look fine. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fully sourced, but not updated with details of her death.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Issue resolved. Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carrie Meek

 * Long enough and has enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio looks very much READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - There a single cn tag in the article that needs to be addressed before posting.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, Kacamata. I thought I had gotten rid of that sentence two days ago. Now the {cn} tag is really gone. --PFHLai (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Kacamata. Canadianerk (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Honduran general election

 * Wait, Castro and Asfura have both claimed victory, and while Castro is clearly in the lead at the moment, nobody is certain how this election will turn out with such a volatile situation. I would support the blurb when counting has reached the point where it is undeniable that Castro has won and more than a few news outlets have acknowledged the win. Especially given that this would be the first time since 2009 where the National Party loses the presidency. For the time being though, its best we wait on such a contentious election. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait While it seems likely that Castro will win the election, considering the history here that is not a certainty. Additionally, her article could use some serious work, especially if she is to be a head of state. It's practically a stub! BSMRD (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Main opponent has conceded, vote share continues to increase, even AP is reporting her as having won. The article is sparse, but good enough IMO. No tags that need attention. Support alt blurb, first female president is notable. Potentially add leftist? It seems most media include her political leaning in their headlines. BSMRD (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait I don't see any sources saying Castro has been elected, even if he won the most votes. Also, how can we know a winner if only 50% of the votes are counted, that seems premature to call the election now? Also added a couple of cn tags which should be fixed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until final results are clear. The article needs improvement: cn tags, lack of prose in the preliminary results, missing at least the "Conduct" and "Aftermath" sections, and it would be great if the "Candidates" section would explain at least a little bit about the proposals of each one. And maybe talk a little more about the candidates to the National Congress and to the mayoralties, at least to the one in Tegucigalpa. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now and wait, way too early to call. Only 50% votes counted and both candidates have claimed victory. In the last election, Orlando caught up in the end to win (opposition was leading in the beginning). Oppose on the ground that we only nominate after a winner has been declared by the electoral comission. BastianMAT (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't wait the winner to be declared by the electoral commission. The most notorious case was the last US election. As soon as RS declares a candidate the winner we can publish it. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 19:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple RS reporting victory. Margin of win is significant. Maybe the blurb should state elected as first female president of Honduras. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently Asfura's National Party reportedly conceded defeat on 30 November 2021, meaning its almost certain that Castro will win. I'm not entirely sure if this is enough to regard her as "elected" but its probably important to acknowledge. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - For the first altblurb, preferably - but either way, RS have declared and the primary opponent conceded. Canadianerk (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – It's done. (BBC Wednesday a.m.: "Xiomara Castro: Honduras votes in first female president") Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now the result has been decided according to reliable sources now (even if all the votes are not yet counted, the opposition has conceded). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ... pending expansion of 240-word article, a stub. (BBC Wednesday a.m.: "Xiomara Castro: Honduras votes in first female president") Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - The altblurb reads better and adds a bit more context (first female president). BeŻet (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support I still think the article is too basic to be included in Main Page. Maybe with what is already there is enough for the rest of the users. Anyway I will support the altblurb, it should be noted that she is the first woman to achieve the presidency of the republic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Virgil Abloh

 * RD Support Although the "Death" section has no sources. He's not a great transformational fashion personality and doesn't pass "Mandela/Thatcher". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT describes Abloh as transformative, barrier-breaking, and that his "ascent to the heights of the traditional luxury industry changed what was possible in fashion". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As the so-called resident fashion expert here, I support RD. No blurb. Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RD Support - not blurb though.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RD Support but no blurb; also pretty knowledgable on fashion. He was important no doubt, but not super influential. Karl Lagerfeld did not have a blurb, and from what I can tell Hubert de Givenchy was nominated but not even featured under RD.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 22:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lagerfeld had both a blurb and photo. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks! I didn't see that at first.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very far from Lagerfeld’s level. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norodom Ranariddh

 * Support Article looks great. In this case we could consider a blurb, perhaps. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go, indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is FA. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added blurbs and image think this FA-level article deserves a blurb. The country's first democratically elected leader, a prominent and politically active of the royal family, plus a longstanding FA-level article, deserves a blurb as well as a RD listing. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Williams

 * Support referencing good, death could do with a bit of expansion. Expect this will be done as more sources report on this. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Notable enough for rd, not only because of his motorsport exploits, but being one of the longest living paraplegics. User:Jsalty254 — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Saviano

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 06:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support struck until close paraphrasing issues resolved.  Spencer T• C 00:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an orange tag atop this wikibio complaining about close paraphrasing. This needs to be addressed before the RD nomination can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Earwig now says "Violation unlikely", yielding similarity scores at 16.7%. I've removed the orange tag. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lubomyra Mandziy

 * Support A bit short but Start class. Fully sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Almudena Grandes

 * Support Comprehensive article and well-sourced. KittenKlub (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Japan Series

 * Anybody? Bueller? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Every game has a game summary with refs. However, I don't think it's a good idea to put much emphasis on Nakamura as the MVP on MainPage as the wikipage (thus far) has not explained what Nakamura did to become the MVP (batted 7-for-22 with three RBIs?). --PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't clear either on why they named him MVP, but this article goes into it some and I'm going to add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support seems fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marilyn McLeod

 * Oppose Article is no longer a stub, however it still quite small. I also assume that the exact date of birth and death can be determined after some searching, because there are bound to be some obituaries. KittenKlub (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Support It's now basic, but good enough. KittenKlub (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle An important figure in Motown. I don't know whether the article is ready or not. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: With only 1287 characters (220 words) of readable prose, this is a stub and not eligible for RD. As an "important figure in Motown", there should be more materials to include in this wikibio. Please expand the article. The {Lead too short} tag also needs to be addressed before this RD nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted It's now much longer at 2399 characters (405 words) and referencing seems okay. --PFHLai (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian coup d'état plot

 * Oppose - for a start, it's a bit one sided claim so far that the coup plot actually existed, but regardless I'll say the fact that they were caught before anything happen makes it not notable enough for ITN. Sucessful coup definitely. Troops or whatever actually made the move but was beaten back by loyal security forces probably. Arrested before anything happened not so much. -- KTC (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think it was thwarted as much as exposed. Basically, Zelensky alleged that there will be a coup on December 1 involving the opposition. So let's just wait till then.Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, also added 2 more neutral blurbs Article's in a decent shape 5.44.170.26 (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, one-paragraph stub with WP:NOTNEWS problems, not major international news, and most importantly there hasn't been an actual coup yet.  Sandstein   12:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: Stephen Sondheim

 * Oppose on quality. Needs refs and I would like to see an improvement of tone before it hits the main page (but the refs are a must). Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle The article's not quite there yet, but he was unquestionably the biggest name in a big field for an incredibly long time. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle  Musical theatre giant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * References improved. No cn tags remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose quality is way below standard. Once we get it there, perhaps we can look at blurb.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle This guy is widely considered the greatest musical theatre composer of all time. However, as noted above, the article is not yet ready. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, since the article's own lede kind of gives him that (provided it's sourced properly, of course). rawmustard (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps someone should first propose a blurb and post it here on WP:ITN/C before any more people vote "support" for a blurb? Perhaps we need separate voting on article quality and readiness? --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To your first point, no. Everyone knows the formula for an RD blurb, whether they see it or not (national job description Someone Surname (pictured) dies at the age of x). That second idea is intriguing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how one can decide to support a blurb, or not support it, without knowing the vocabulary used for "national job description". I think Sunshineisles2's blurb got it right, though. --PFHLai (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Proposed blurb, and I would additionally support blurb in principle when the article can be sufficiently improved. Few figures from the theatre world would qualify more than Sondheim as a transformative name in the field: the article leads on quoting the Medal of Freedom ceremony crediting him with "[reinventing] the American musical," there are theaters on both Broadway and the West End named after him, and there was literally a quarterly journal solely dedicated to his work that ran for over two decades.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality until that's fixed, it's a moot point, as it can't go onto RD or ITN blurb unless it's sufficient quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb Big name in a big field, which will draw attention to itself in RD (pending article fixup). Nothing at all newsworthy about his age. Photo RD as an honorary gesture, if that's the goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have we ever done a "photo RD"? Mlb96 (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once or twice, but that attitude didn't stop Stephen Sondheim from trying nice things, c'mon! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very occasionally: it's admittedly not a regular occurrence by any stretch. This is the most recent time I can think of, and it's been nearly two years. Though I wouldn't oppose a photo RD every once in a while.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried it once - I was reverted and told I was crazy. I gave up at that point.  Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Not going left, not going right"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Of the theatre/film composers, Sondheim, Morricone and Williams are definitely at the top of the field and all deserve a blurb. However, considering that Morricone was dismissed for a blurb as an "old man", it'd be unjust to bypass it and give Sondheim a blurb (the same would be the case for Williams).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the only reason I didn't say "old man dies" for this one was because I said OMD in the summary. Nothing personal. They were equally old and expressive in my books (and all subjectively beneath Carpenter, Elfman and Johnston). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle A giant in the theatre world. Created so many masterworks, influenced so much culture. The top of his field. Passes the "Thatcher/Mandela" standard we sometimes use regarding world leader RDs. Transformational global leader. -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although, in fact, only 5' 8"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – (My 2 ¢ ) – I would oppose a blurb via the old-man-dies theme, but I don't know enough about his field to gauge 'transformativity.' Must admit he probably qualifies as a household name among the culturally aware – which, alas, may be a minority. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb because of his prolific career at the top of his field. Him dying naturally as a nonagenarian doesn't disqualify him. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb or Photo RD in principle: ("in principle" because I leave others to judge quality). Sunshineisles2 has pointed out above that we posted this Photo RD 2 years ago. Basically something to mark the passing of a very notable individual, so either a blurb or a Photo RD.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but why is his name not in the RD namelist already? -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some paras still without sources. Send in the cn tags? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How many "SUPPORT RD" votes so far? "in principle" does not count. --PFHLai (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No not the blurb. Just his name in the RD list. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As with Colin Powell: d. 18 Oct, only 20 Oct name in RD. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there are multiple paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The says:
 * "A blurb needs ... target article ... check the quality of that article ... updated, ... reliable sources demonstrate the significance...": about quality for blurb article then. Then it says:
 * "RD line ... can include any living thing whose death was recently announced".
 * iow: no restriction by article quality for RD inclusion. Personally I find it reasonable that an article that was obviously BLP-conformant and that has an RS death announdement, can be linked to from RD. Anyway, an omittance, just as with Colin Powell (who was added to RD without blurp-quality articele&mdash; 2 days later b/c of similar blurb discussion). -DePiep (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t post sub-standard biographies as a blurb or to recent deaths. Stephen 05:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is what I am questioning. So far, only the blurb is explicitly mentioned for such a requirement. Also, I cannot find the reasoning that forces us to have such an omission on MP. -DePiep (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For any section on the Main Page (which includes ITN), any featured article is expected to demonstrate the quality with which WP editors can write. We don't expect FA quality for ITN featured items, but an article on an RD better be up to BLP specifications as a minimum standard, and that means large swathes of text missing sourcing is not a demonstration of our best work. --M asem (t) 05:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD point 4 says "Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." The linked section on article quality says, in part, "Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable." Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb One of the most notable living people in the theater world before his death. Blurb is warranted. Thriley (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, top of the field. --Clibenfoart (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Citations now improved. Any more required, or can this be posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still at least eight paragraphs without a single reference, and many more with content that isn’t sourced by refs present. So, not by a long shot. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you care to add appropriate cn tags, or even add a reference or two? Or perhaps you could improve "the tone"? Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support blurb now. I respect the application of WP:BLPRS to this project. However, it's counterintuitive to demand further refinement of a very long, good article with 200 citations while posting other articles so short they barely pass AFD.   GreatCaesarsGhost   22:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid argument given that many of the CN tags are on opinions/subjective statements. Even if it had 1000 citations, having those CNs on those types of statements is a no-go for main page posting. --M asem (t) 02:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPRS applies to the entire project, but most articles violate it. The elevated standard applied to ITN in its guidelines is not absolute, using words like "should" and "generally." The same language applies to proseline, but we never block on that basis alone. I agree the standard should be higher, but the measure of that standard remains the subjective opinion of the editors here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you are trying to argue with here; when it was posted the article had zero CN tags. As of my writing this, it still has zero CN tags.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose So much tags. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support RD or blurb Certainly top of his field; The NY Times describes him as a "titan of the American musical." Article is comprehensive and well-referenced. I just sourced the last 10 [citation needed] tags. Ackatsis (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: all cn tags have now been answered. In fact, User:Ackatsis answered the last one over two hours ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb if Little Richard or Morricone didn't get blurbed. I will not, however, support a pull at this time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

 * Support The recent mutation in SARS-CoV-2 found in the Southen African region have recently been assigned a name. This new information is very important due to the mutations in the variant TapticInfo (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have COVID in ongoing. We have no real data other than how mutated this variant is.  If it is the "end of days" variant, I'd support a blurb, but in the meantime, ongoing covers it well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I concur with TRM. I think every variant is concerning, but there isn't yet anything unusual about this one. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, a momentary pause: it is unusual in that the UK (for example) has already banned flights from southern Africa. No-one could land from there in the UK from midday today (and I know someone now stranded in Botswana as a result).  So that is highly unusual.  But it's purely precautionary based on what the UK didn't do with the delta variant.  So there's a spectrum of "usualness".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first VOC since Delta (and we all know how that one turned out). Covid is on ongoing but this is I think a big enough update. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait The WHO said that it will take a few weeks to assess the impact. Until its impact becomes clear, it should stay off the front page. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 20:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if the EU, US, UK and Canada imposing new travel bans on various African nations as a result of the new variant is noteworthy enough for the front page. Calidum  21:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It took the WHO all of two days to dub this the first VOC since Delta in May, and every news site I've checked has Omicron as its top headline. --Xarm Endris (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, 331. We have an Ongoing venue for Covid developments, and my impression is remains that not enough is known about this variant to warrant separate promotion at ITN. – Sca (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this is headline news worldwide with major impact on travel, financial markets, etc. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Confirmed cases already in Europe. This is an escalation. BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of variants (including those that fizzled out) had confirmed cases in different countries in various parts of the world. As of now coverage about this variant is mostly speculation. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:2D79:6E12:60A:10C4 (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is written in British English, so why is the blurb being proposed with American spelling? Labeled is labelled in British English, which would be consistent with the article. This isn't American Wikipedia, no matter how much Americans want to whitewash the rest of the world. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you Assume Good Faith Joseph2302? No one is whitewashing anything; likely the author who proposed the blurb uses American English. I'd make the same mistake. Also, I dunno about the validity of "labeled" in British English, but in American English, "Labelled" is a valid (but less common) spelling.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll stop complaining when ITN stops getting spammed with Americanism. shows my point on spellings. And we get way to many spurious, non notable ITN nominations about American stuff, compared to very little from other countries. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't an American story, so your complaint is irrelevant. Cut it out. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There'll be L to pay over this ridiculous rhubarb. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely ridiculous rant. wow Belugsump (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So Britons seemingly hijack an article that seemingly should have been written in some form of Southern African English and then decide it's very wicked of Americans to accidentally fail to go along with this. Great to see how Brexit has restored British self-confidence. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Britons"! Fantastic, hilarious.  More!  More!  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true... Anglo-Saxon? WaltCip- (talk)  14:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- this is getting attention that even the Delta variant did not get. It's the top headline worldwide (although, it is a slow news period since it's Thanksgiving/Black Friday weekend). -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For about eight billion people worldwide, there'll be no figgy turkey and cheap electronics this weekend. Just headlines, everywhere, slowly repeating "Omicron". Omicron. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The existing ongoing doesn't provide anywhere near sufficient coverage in my opinion, with ctrl+f only finding the name of this variant used once. I second BabbaQ, the situation is escalating, significant, and merits separate coverage. Canadianerk (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered in ongoing; all we know is we don't know much yet, and like general COVID, learning more could take years. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support several countries have already taken action in response to this variant. It is clearly highly newsworthy. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a possible alternative for the blurb, as there's nothing else on the Ongoing line presently, but this is a significant aspect to COVID we could add a parenthetical link to the Omicron variant page in Ongoing, assuming that that target is of quality. --M asem (t) 06:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Altblurbed If anyone knows how many those "several" are in real numbers, feel free to fill me in. I still oppose both blurbs. Just think this one is less routine advisory, more headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This new variant has a large probability of becoming a new pandemic, COVID-21 that will exist parallel to COVID-19. So, we're then back to square one. If we then repeat the same mistake of not containing COVID-21 using strict lockdowns like the Chinese did in Wuhan, we'll end up with the same outcome a few years later: COVID-23 and back to square one yet again. Count Iblis (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that somewhat alarming and rather sound advice is in the blurbs or target article, though...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ITN isn't a forum for probabilities of any size, however many alarums may divert us from editorial probity. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Now this is definately IN THE NEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a WP:MEDRS matter and so unsuitable for ITN which posts uncited blurbs on a highly visible but protected page. The news is quite tentative and based on a press-release rather than solid science.  The WHO statements are not consistent – that the variant is concerning but that measures such as travel bans should not be used and that we should use the alphabet to avoid stigma but not follow its order to avoid Xi.  It appears that the variant will not be well understood for at least two weeks and so we will have to wait for reliable information.  See also mu. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Variant of concern is a formal designation, and we have posted medical news plenty of times before (e.g. when COVID-19 was declared a pandemic; I'll save folks the embarrassment of digging up who opposed that one) in addition to medical TFA blurbs, so I don't think your argument that we should avoid anything MEDRS on the main page has precedent. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to ongoing where COVID-19 is already listed. Yes places have suspended flights, but they've been doing this on and off for almost 2 years now. And it's based more on the fact they don't know enough about this variant. ALT0 is dull and doesn't explain why this needs posting, when no other variant did. ALT1 is a knee-jerk reaction to countries not knowing enough about it, that will likely be recinded in a couple of weeks. And not sure the article meets WP:MEDRS either. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Very widely reported on Saturday, with suspected cases in The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. However, vaccine makers say tweaked Covid vaccines could be developed quickly against the Omnicron variant. In the circumstances, it's too early to play Omnicron as a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This new virus is actually mentioned all over the news. And confirmed cases is starting to be reported daily.BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to me I've encountered the phrase "all over" all over the place lately. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Skeptical because there is only suspicion at this point. Nothing is actually known other than that there's a new variant of concern. Unfortunately science does not lend itself to breaking news.  Rather, it's a long slow progression.  This can be covered in ongoing.  We should not chase the latest COVID speculation, much of which eventually proves to be wrong. WHO has named 5 variants of concern, but only Alpha and Delta appear to have become dominant in their time.  We do not know if Omicron will be another Delta, or if it will go the way of Gamma. How many times have we previously posted a WHO announcement about a variant of concern?  If we didn't post the last five, why should we post this one?  As for the alternative blurb, is the travel disruption between southern Africa and the rest of the world significant enough, or is it just more the same that's been happening here and there for the last 18 months (which would suggests this should be covered in ongoing). Jehochman Talk 13:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per TRM above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because travel between many countries has been severely adversely affected. The news of the variant caused a huge fall in the oil price & stock markets on Fri. Jim Michael (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Even if it turns out to be fairly harmless it has already caused significant disruption, including the cancellation of a major WTO conference in Geneva, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jehochman above. Unfortunately the news here is not what's IN the news, but the fact that so many ill-informed people are getting stressed and excited about something they know so little about. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not our role to judge whether the top headlines were chosen appropriately. And I'd argue that a new variant that could prolong the pandemic, potentially leading to millions of deaths and billions in economic losses, is absolutely a story that deserves to be getting the attention it has, even if we don't know everything yet. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Like it or not, Omicron is THE biggest story in the world right now and that will continue to be the case for a while. Even if it turns out that the variant is not vaccine resistant, the real world implications in terms of the response by many countries have been major, and there will be further discussions either way about what to do next, including likely implications for speeding up vaccine distribution to the developing countries. We should post items to ITN based on what's actually happening rather than on what we'd like people to think. Nsk92 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I hinted at above, the news here is not so much the existence of this variant, but the fact that so many ill-informed people are getting stressed and excited about something they know so little about. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I follow the experts that says that the new variant is highly dangerous and even have basically closed down the UK and South Africa. Excited? come on.BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as we can read here: "The variant harbors a high number of mutations in regions of the spike protein that antibodies recognize, potentially dampening their potency. “Many mutations we know are problematic, but many more look like they are likely contributing to further evasion,” says Moore. There are even hints from computer modelling that B.1.1.529 could dodge immunity conferred by another component of the immune system called T cells, says Moore.....Moore says breakthrough infections have been reported in South Africa among people who have received any of the three kinds of vaccines in use there, from Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca. Two quarantined travellers in Hong Kong who have tested positive for the variant were vaccinated with the Pfizer jab, according to news reports. One individual had travelled from South Africa; the other was infected during hotel quarantining." Count Iblis (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did they get severe disease, hospitalization, and death? That is what actually matters, not mild / asymptomatic infections. There were lots of cases of mild breakthrough infections with other variants. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:2D79:6E12:60A:10C4 (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If omicron escapes immunity and spreads better than delta, then this will cause the number of omicron cases to explode but without it replacing the delta variant, because immunity against omicron does not lead to immunity against delta. So, we'll then have two parallel pandemics. Because Delta alone causes capacity problems at hospitals, omicron doesn't need to be worse than delta. If it spreads more rapidly than delta, then even with a smaller hospitalization rate you can still get a huge peak in hospitalizations. Even if it is so benign that such a peak is relatively small, this will still add to the hospitalized delta-variant patients, so even in that case it will be bad news. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Any claim that it is a complete vaccine escape variant is speculation. Lots of people said the same about earlier variants like the mu variant and beta variant, there was a drop in neutralization effectiveness but the vaccine was still effective. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:2D79:6E12:60A:10C4 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A suggestion to those who support posting this: try reframing the blurb. The news here is not a science story, but it might be a social story about governments panicking (or grandstanding) after being burned before. Unfortunately the travel bans will solve nothing because this variant has already dispersed, and the variant doesn't care whether somebody is a citizen of one country or another. (The travel bans have exemptions allowing expatriates to return home.) If it's bad, it's going to trigger another wave. If it's not that bad, then this is much ado about nothing. We cannot know at this time which scenario will follow. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now an altblurb to that effect, but the problem is that there are a large number of small consequences, which arguably justify posting collectively but probably not individually (the current altblurb is mentioning what arguably looks like "just another travel ban, which happen all the time"), and it's seemingly hard to phrase an altblurb to say this acceptably. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Coverage about this variant is mostly speculation. Not everything is bad, for instance there are preliminary reports that this variant tends to produce less severe infections (like the other stuff, this is preliminary, it will take time to confirm or disprove). Many of the support votes are speculating, see WP:CRYSTAL. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:2D79:6E12:60A:10C4 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Time to close? I'm a 'Support' but, if I have not miscounted, I make the current count 13 Supports to 11 Opposes (counting the Skeptical and Add to Ongoing as Opposes), so seemingly not much likelihood of a 2 to 1 Supermajority for posting, and closing may help editors focus their efforts on more productive work. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An unsuccessful close would be yet another piece of evidence that In the News is utterly incapable of actually posting news. There is a slim majority supporting, but this is not a vote, and I think the opposes are largely uncompelling: they say it's just speculation, ignoring the fact that just the reaction to the speculation alone is notable enough to be the top headline worldwide. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One more oppose, per Andrew, TRM. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Solomon Islands unrest

 * Support A... friendly invasion? merits a blurb for sure This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Australians were invited in per a treaty, they didn't take over anything and say they are neutral in the dispute. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Until the significance of this event is established. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the infobox and text don't match on the causes (text doesn't mention economic or COVID factors). And blurb seems incorrect, as Australia were invited in, they didn't take over. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I used the term "take over" because that's the term used by Reuters and Australian Financial Review. I added an alt blurb for clarification.Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly the AFR is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, a man who has always had a stronger interest in stirring political troubles rather than reporting facts. Using it as a source is little better than using Fox "News". Reuters may well have simply copied the language used the AFR. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded the Background section to include economic factors. The first deaths were also reported from the unrest.Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not largely in the news. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. There is more than enough continuing international coverage e.g WaPo, CNN, NYT, Al Jazeera, Guardian, etc. The intervention of Australian troops already makes it much more than an internal unrest story. Plus most of the properties burned are apparently China owned businesses and there are likely to be implications for China's Belt and Road projects in the Solomon Islands. Nsk92 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Australian Federal Police is NOT Australian troops. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the Australian Defense Forces were also deployed.Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the proposed blurb is wrong. And we need different sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN explicitly says that both Australian police and Defense Force have been deployed. Nsk92 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the proposed blurb is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Neutral on Posting, but, if we do post, Support Altblurb (or variants) and Oppose Blurb: The blurb makes it look like "Australian Imperialism", which it seemingly isn't (although it may well eventually come to be perceived as such by many, as happened, for instance, with British intervention in Northern Ireland in 1969, and with the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka that eventually led to Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, but we're not in the Crystal Ball business). I may or may not add an altblurb that mentions the Australian Defence Forces per above discussion, although the altblurb may then get a bit long.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Switching from neutral on posting to Support, after giving further thought to the geopolitical aspects, as this seems to be a clear instance of Sino-US rivalry in action. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Its now stale as most of the violence and "action" was from 2 days ago. Also cognizant that this seemed to be a protest with a few hundred people, notwithstanding that the country does not have a high population to begin with. 2607:FEA8:41E3:EA00:D9D6:8C9A:90FA:F356 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stale? Still fresher than two of the four blurbs on ITN now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.139 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Event is still ongoing, but blurb needed updates to reflect the passage of time since initial nomination. New Zealand and Fiji have sent troops and police, on top of Fiji. I've attempted to create an altblurb to reflect the recent events - I'm new to ITN, so please feel free to adjust existing blurbs/substantially rephrase mine. Adding to "ongoing", given Australian officials cited in The Guardian article expect the deployment (and the situation overall) to continue for "a few weeks", is something I would support as well. Canadianerk (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support A major event in the region. Fixer88 (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Events section needs better clarity on what actually happened: who is protesting? What is being protested? Information is available in news articles, especially since this has been going on for several days. The quality of the article is close but needs some more detail before it is ready.  Spencer T• C 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * U|Spencer I rearranged some things in the article, and added the source you suggested. Also put Papua New Guinea in altblurb3. I hope it helps - I'm not familiar with Australian English so was hoping to leave it for someone else, but figured it was worth attempting - given the time left on the nomination. If you need more, I can put some time aside to dig into the events section, research etc - and properly expand it. Canadianerk (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aron Atabek

 * Support A well referenced article with a lot of information. -- Seyyed(t-c) 06:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose looks alright but awards are unreferenced, and I'd have to AGF on the non-English sources. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Referenced the Awards section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. BabbaQ (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion: This wikibio is certainly long enough and carries enough footnotes. However, the prose, particularly some of the longer sentences, could use some copyediting before the link to this wikibio goes onto MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Went ahead and did the copyediting myself, needed a good amount.  Spencer T• C 00:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dieter B. Herrmann

 * Support Article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Listvyazhnaya mine disaster

 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is sufficient. If it had happened in the Western world it would be posted within a couple of hours. Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The sad story with a high death toll is ITN material. The wikiarticle, with 250 words of prose, is a bit too stubby, though. Any more to add? --PFHLai (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems to be a pretty big disaster. As Jim Michael said, if this had happened in the European Union or North America it would already have been posted. GWA88 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality barely more than a stub. Also RT is a depreciated source, so shouldn't be used, ergo more sourcing is needed. Also, how is the deaths in infobox 52, but 11 in the text? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a better source. As for the death toll, I believe 11 is the number of bodies recovered (excluding the rescuers who died), but the Russian Authorities state that 51 died because the missing miners are presumed dead. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few sentences to clarify the death toll. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – With the discovery of a survivor, several RS sites put toll at 51 – including 11 bodies found so far. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Major disaster. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be the 4th most lethal mining disaster in this century. Article is ok. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks better now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb2. --PFHLai (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleksandr Omelchenko

 * Support. Everything looks good. Very solid. BD2412  T 03:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ok for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) New Prime Minister in Romania

 * Support Head of gov change is de facto ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN/R, nothing special about this occurrence. List of current heads of state and government the President of Romania is the green shaded box. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Romania is a semi-presidential republic, with more limited presidential powers than in other countries with this system, so the PM assumes part of the “administer the executive of their respective state/government”. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Head of gov change is an important event.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Head of Governmemt is definitely notable. Article looks ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support change of government is de facto ITNR, and article is just about long enough. Surely there's more that can be said about his government roles though, like what he did in the roles? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Is "elect" the correct verb in the blurb? It was more of a negotiation than an election. Is altblurb better? --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, there doesn't appear to have been an election to trigger this, so think ALT1 is better. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I mean is that he was elected by a vote in parliament. The same way it happened with Andersson. But I like the altblurb anyway. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted altblurb. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi elected president of Interpol

 * Needs work The election is in the news as I heard a radio bulletin about it myself. But the article needs work as it's currently too much about the controversy with not enough about the man for a biography.  For example, I find that he wrote Social & Security Impact of the Internet but the article says nothing about that.  I wonder what it says about Wikipedia... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought about including the book you link, but it was published by a governmental security think tank, so I'm not sure about it's quality and DUEness. I can't say much more about the work, given that it is only held by Abu Dhabi University in print . See my reply to Joseph for your first point below, which I hope can address your concerns. 15 (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I have added a sentence on it in the early career section. 15 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the article is way too focused on his controversies, to the point that it violates NPOV in my opinion. More needs adding on the rest of his career- he has worked since 1980, but the only thing mentioned in the first paragraph of the Career section is a controversy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have added some information on his pre-candidacy career, education and non-policing activities with this edit. Unfortunately, most sources (at least those that I can read) write almost exclusively about his candidacy, with information on other aspects of his life being mostly confined to official puff-pieces with dubious reliability (e.g., https://anr.ae/). 15 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the quality of the article has been improved, and to my understanding it would not fit in ITNR, but being a major international organization it might. I don't know, tbh. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not really seeing the major significance of this if I'm honest. Most of the heads of these international organisations are not particularly influential in their own right, and often the major policy comes from national governments. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If Interpol was a global police agency with authority over us, this would be notable, but it isn't such a thing. They largely coordinate interactions between the police agencies of the world. It also doesn't seem like any major policy changes will be coming as a result of this. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hermann Bausinger

 * Weak oppose Career section a shade too brief to meet minimum standards; body of article with 1.5 paragraphs when 3 is considered the minimum standard.  Spencer T• C 11:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a bit. No more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be ok now. Grimes2 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mārtiņš Brauns

 * A bit short but long enough to not be considered a stub (>300 words) and with enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. I wish there were more to read about his music, but what is currently on the wikipage meets the basic requirements for RD purposes. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Murder of Ahmaud Arbery verdict

 * Oppose Is it really necessary to discuss such a case again? I refer to here. Yet another case with zero international impact and interest, yet another case of a purely local trial. Far from being akin to the conviction for the murder of George Floyd. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If "international impact" was required for postings, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should be much more decisive when it comes to court rulings than in other cases (sports, science, elections...). If the follow-up of a trial has a very low international coverage/interest, will you tell me that it's not an important requirement to take into account when determining whether a court case is blurb-worthy or not? So many people are condemned every day in this world... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, we aren't talking about someone convicted of robbing the corner store, but a black man who was murdered basically for being in the wrong neighborhood in a part of the United States where convictions for this sort of thing are rare. And as I said, this incident has influenced changes in laws. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, laws of a single U.S. state (as far as I know). If it were at the federal level I might come to support it, but not at this one. And many are the events that trigger legislative changes. And without a doubt, the article is in excellent shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. This was a highly followed trial in the US, and even before the verdict this incident resulted in changes in Georgia law(the elimination of citizens' arrests). 331dot (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Article is also of decent quality from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- this verdict is likely to influence future trials of this type in the United States, and it is an historic decision in an area of the country known for its virulent racism. I doubt a jury would have reached this verdict in that area even 20 years ago. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support High profile case with notable legal impact, quality article.  Spencer T• C 21:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a newsworthy verdict, and the article is in good shape from a skim-through. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose people found guilty of crime that they themselves were stupid enough to video. Seriously.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's gotten a lot of attention for emotional reasons, and on a human level the crime was shocking. But its long-term significance is likely to be minimal. People are murdered every day all over the world. Some get a lot of press attention. We almost never post them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's already had long term significance, both legally and perhaps socially. This was not a garden variety murder. I don't understand this line of thinking more generally. If this event is not notable due to not having "long term significance", it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all, there does exist a middle ground between ITN and AFD. This is a prime example.  It's the result of a clear-cut murder case which the perps videoed themselves.  A no-brainer.  What would have been newsworthy would have been this ending in a non-guilty verdict and the no-doubt ensuing riots. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They taped it because they were in their mind attempting to make a citizens arrest(which was banned after this incident) even though they had no evidence of a crime. And in Georgia and elsewhere this is, rightly or wrongly, not clear cut. Even 15 years ago these men might have got off. And there was doubt Derek Chauvin would be convicted for killing George Floyd even though that was on video. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's nuanced and emotive but ultimately it's just another crime story. It's been whipped up with publicity and is precisely the reason that we need to apply some common sense to these kinds of nominations.  It is of minimal long term significance.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this crime had occurred in the 1960s or earlier with the same verdict, I'd support posting due to its obvious significance. But it's not 1961. It's 2021 and in this day and age racial lynchings, when they happen, typically end up with long jail sentences. The man was murdered. His killers were tried and convicted in open court. Where's the long term significance? Again, this is not 1961 where there would have been a great deal of shock at this outcome. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it should be proposed for deletion. I am going to now withdraw from this discussion as I am finding it frustrating that we are drifting away from our mission here. This is on me and me alone, no one else. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any question that this passes WP:EVENT and GNG. But ITN has traditionally had higher standards for posting events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. There is a middle ground between AFD and ITN, and this article falls squarely in there.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape, well referenced, and story is currently being adequately covered by reliable sources. Meets all requirements. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Similar to the Rittenhouse verdict - limited notability, outcome that isn't nationally or globally significant in any game-changing or important way. Prism55 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This wasn't a case with the same scope as the George Floyd killing, it had no ties to terrorism and did not create any major unrest from the original event (nor the verdict), and outside of the event, none of these people are notable. This is the type of thing we absolutely should NOT be posting to ITN. --M asem (t) 23:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree with the idea that there must be global protests and riots in order to post a highly notable criminal conviction. We are supposed to follow the news at least somewhat and we have a great article to feature. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a notable criminal conviction - all parties involved are BLP1E. It's a highly-covered story, but given the bias our sources have towards US-based stories, this is not a surprise. And no, we're not supposed to follow the news - we aren't a news ticker. That's what the Current Events page is for. --M asem  (t) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose this kind of case is fairly common in the US. The focus tends to be on race, not on the facts of the case or the law. If the focus were on the last, then perhaps the law might change in which case there is a long-term impact; since it isn't, if we post this we might as well put "bias in the United States legal system" or some similar article into ongoing. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The law did change in Georgia in response Arbery's murder. The Georgia legislature repealed their statute allowing for citizen's arrest. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's still only one state though. I would prefer to see something at country level. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Every Black Lives Matter adjacent case isn’t news for the In The News section, unless we come to a consensus that Black Lives Matter should be given special consideration for the section. Trillfendi (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't be doing that, as it's a WP:BIAS towards American news stories. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't need to post every murder verdict on ITN. If this wasn't an American murder trial, it wouldn't even be considered here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) English Channel disaster

 * Wait ... pending development of article, now a 150-word stub, more than half reactions. Whilst? – Sca (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, whilst. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dost thou say 'whilst' in conversation? – Sca (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, yes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Was asking Amakuru. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps next time start chatting on his talk page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't "chatting," I was asking a question relevant to ENGVAR usage. (Kindly desist from tutelage, however well meant. Thank you ever so much, TRM.) – Sca (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I responded knowing the ENGVAR used by Amakuru would allow "whilst". And in any case, you asked "whilst" in general in your opening post.  Good grief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TLW – Sca (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * almost. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it seems my answer is required here, I'm pretty sure I do sometimes say "whilst" in conversation. There are times when it scans better in the sentence than "while". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I only use that word whilst trying to educate lesser breeds without the law. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forget Stadler and Waldorf, bring in the dwarves. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Article is not developed enough to be ready for the main page.  If that is fixed, it can be posted.  Also, none of the blurbs link the article.  That will need to be fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * fixed now Llewee (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update Toll slid instead of climbing, down to 27. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still thin, with only 112 words of text devoted to the actual event (out of 315 words of total verbiage). – Sca (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality the actual section on the Incident itself is too short, as not enough details are known yet. This article is inflated by an overly long background section with tangential relevance to this event (and which is covered in the article on the wider issue anyway), and too many reactions for an article of this size. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Is this a particularly unusual or notable event? I'm think of SIEV-X. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes for a crossing of the Channel, but not globally. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61E1:D1B1:168:D0F4 (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there have been several capsize events in the Med around Lampadusa but this is the worst such event in the Channel for a long time. The one you note was 20 years ago. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support once the issues are resolved. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support because it's important enough & the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Has now also been the initial cause of a diplomatic rift between UK and France, thanks to our great leader. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A s(n)ide show. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On article quality. Still too thin (and topic is getting stale). – Sca (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the topic is front and centre in Europe, and has caused issues between France and the UK. The "migrant crisis" is ALL OVER the news. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks a bit on the thin side but good enough for ITN. I'd stick this in as the 3rd item. --PFHLai (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2021 Belarus–European Union border crisis

 * Remove. I think Belarus cleared out migrants from the border; Putin must think he made his point. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. The migrants have been moved away from the border and the situation has calmed down. No longer an ongoing event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although the situation appears to have been at least partially defused, there have been reports in recent days that in some cases Belorussian guards have continued to help migrants breach the border into Polish territory.,  – Sca (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Removal from ongoing is based on the article being updated frequently, which isn't the case here. If it gets some regular updates, then it can stay on ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove the existence of news coverage that Sca notes is a necessary but not sufficient condition for maintaining an ongoing link. The article also needs to have been continuously updated.  That clearly didn't happen here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I have read the reports mentioned by Sca. It appears as if the situation have slowed down, but not ended. So still Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Spencer T• C 21:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-removal comment: – Still going on. A group of about 200 migrants sought to break through the border from Belarus Wednesday night. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly you're ignoring the bit of ongoing that says In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. The article is not being updated, which is why it was removed. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just letting the users know. Część. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lukashenko went to border on 11/26.  – Sca (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please add to the article rather than here in ITN/C. --65.94.214.139 (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MYOB – Sca (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Magdalena Andersson

 * Comment she takes office on the 26th (according to her article). Until that point, the blurb isn't correct, as she only becomes the first female PM of Sweden on that date. Is it usual to post when it's announced, or when they take office? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually when they are elected but yeah with the blurb of being elected. BastianMAT (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - First female PM in Sweden. But change blurb to ”is elected” instead becomes.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. BastianMAT (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Significant as new PM and first female. Perhaps the blub should be "elected by the Riksdag" since she didn't gain office through a normal election (by the people). <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's normal in a parliamentary system. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should probably start with "Following the resignation of Stefan Löfven, ..." to provide context, since this was not an election outcome but a government reshuffle. --Tone 10:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now the blurb has been changed to "is elected" seems fine to run now. Agree with that we should make it clearer that this wasn't an election that caused this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Her article looks great, is ITNR and altblurb, although somewhat long, it's the most complete and clear of all. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would suggest that we use the image of Andersson at the front page.BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, we usually use the image for the newest blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support This is historic. -TenorTwelve (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Sweden's in the EU, perhaps she'll become the next Merkel. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then again, maybe not. – Sca (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Update 2 by nominator Magdallena Andersson has officially resigned. We might have to pull the news back as she won’t be assuming office. She will only assume office if she wins a new prime minister vote, which might take place in a few days/weeks, depending on how the talks with the speaker goes. SVT BastianMAT (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update by the nominator Things are looking bad for her and her party now. The Center Party (liberal) voted for the opposition’s budget and it got through. The Center party did not agree with the goverment’s budget, stating it was way too left. That would mean Magdallena now has to rule with right wing economic politics, which she accepted. However their junior party the Green party did not accept it and have left the goverment meaning a new Riksdag election for the prime minister post shall be held. Interesting development. SVT BastianMAT (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull (or update the blurb). Her resignation is quickly making international news. 142.182.136.105 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update blurb Move over Kim Campbell, there's a new sheriff in town. Or more precisely, there was one for a few hours.Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull until it's confirmed whether she will now be the leader or not. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull What is ITNR is that a few hours ago she has been elected by the Swedish parliament. However much she has resigned. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What updating with "and immediately resigns" or something? This is a really weird sequence of events. --Tone 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull - The blurb, as it currently stands, is false.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated to Magdalena Andersson (pictured), shortly after being elected as the first female prime minister of Sweden, resigns. Any further changes, please? --PFHLai (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine now. --Tone 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of blurbs that contemplate the resignation of a prime minister...But knowing a bit of precedent, it's very likely that in a few days/weeks she will be re-elected, as happened with Löfven in the middle of this year. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I support this new blurb. It will work until she is finally elected the new PM in a few days or at the longest a week.BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully, we'll have an update about her taking office soon. That would be a simple update to do. --PFHLai (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull -- wait until she actually is seated. She just resigned. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The blurb already says that. It's fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably just my own bias here; but it seems silly to post this when she just resigned. Forming coalition governments in a parliamentary system is weird. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fascinating and encyclopedic story. Unlike the myriad legal cases being spewed out of the US these days.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support new/current blurb ("Magdalena Andersson resigns shortly after being elected as the first female prime minister of Sweden.") The story remains encyclopedic and newsworthy. Chrisclear (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)

 * Support important mission with global implications, good article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This may be notable as the first mission of its type (to post now); it will be ITNR when it arrives as well.  Just saying. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be ITN/R per "first ... launches of any type of rocket" as it's the first mission to use the NEXT drive but that's debatable. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The NEXT is the thruster on the spacecraft, not the rocket that put it up there(a Falcon 9). 331dot (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Such missions usually have multiple stages and each stage has separate rocket engines. The first stage is usually more spectacular but there's no scientific reason to prefer it.  For deep space missions lasting years, the efficiency of the final spacecraft will be most important and this is a new design. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support important global mission (even if it does sound like DART is copying the plot of Salvation (TV series)). Added 3 cn tags to article, but apart from that, it looks more than good enough article quality for the front page. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Everyone in the world should be happy we'll finally have a way to stop any doomsday asteroids from wiping us all out.  D r e a m Focus  11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it works, of course... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support is ITNR from what Andrew says and the global impact of this mission is undoubted, so it's clearly notable. In fact I think it should be one of the most important scientific news of the year. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Global impact?? I thought the idea was to avoid that! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This event can't be notable, its only impact is on a small unpopulated asteroid! WaltCip- (talk)  14:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Impactfulness nonapparent at this pt. in time & space. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the proposed blurb is a mess. I've added alt1, though for some reason that's messing up the template formatting - I can't work out why. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not ITNR, as it's not a new type of rocket and interplanetary probes are ITNR when they arrive at their destination, not when launched. But the gap here is long enough (ten months) that it's reasonable to post both launch and arrival. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed the formatting issue. Adding italics to either of the blurbs breaks it, because italics are already applied by default.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the mission is attempting to alter the course of the asteroid makes this particularly notable. Added alt2. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt2 is incorrect. It won't 'deflect the course' of the asteroid. The impact will modify orbit of the moon around the asteroid, not either of their orbits around the Sun. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dimorphos is an asteroid (albeit a minor one compared to Didymos). It will deflect its course. Nothing to do with the Sun. Polyamorph (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It may deflect its course. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It will deflect it, even if by only a negligible amount. But this is covered by the wording of alt2 "on a mission to attempt to deflect the course". Polyamorph (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – From what I've seen, this is such a complicated, long-term project that any significant results may be years off. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no mention of Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck or Michael Bay. But seriously Support, though I'd recommend that gallery be trimmed down. --M asem (t) 15:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention Taylor Swift. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean Liv Tyler :) Brandmeistertalk  20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess I spaced her out. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support ALT2 Very significant, and definitely should be in ITN. Heythereimaguy (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 – significant, interesting science story. Can "artist's impression pictured" go in the caption not the blurb? User:GKFXtalk 23:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Nice addition to the news . --Frmorrison (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Post-Posting Support - This mission on its own arguably justifies all humankind's entire space budgets to date, and I only heard about it because it was on our front page (I missed most news stories yesterday for medical reasons). Thanks, Wikipedia, and thanks also to all the editors who contributed to the article and its posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Fitz-Allen Mitchell

 * Support article looks fine for RD, there's enough content about what he actually did as PM (which is what is sometimes lacking in politicial bios). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is in good shape. KittenKlub (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Omar Malavé

 * Oppose article is a stub (851 characters), needs to be expanded before it will be accepted on RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Virdon

 * Support Marking ready. Not sure if there's a consensus for the "managerial career" table needing a ref right in that section in baseball articles but the second external link covers that.  Spencer T• C 23:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Bulgaria bus crash

 * Support once the article is expanded. This is clearly a major tragedy which receives front-page coverage (ended up in an edit conflict while trying to nominate this myself). I've added an alternative blurb to mention that the bus caught fire following the crash as reported in the news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment another of my articles nominated by The Rambling Man? Now you're just spoiling me Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Top news story and completely tragic loss of masses of life. What's not to nominate? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality right now the article is a stub, but I expect more information will come out at some point today, so article can be expanded. Event itself is ITN-worthy. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a bus plunge and so just routine news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, it didn't "plunge", it crashed into a barrier and then caught fire, killing dozens of people. That's not routine anywhere.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Over a million people die on the roads every year – that's over 3,000 every day. The coverage of this case says that "there were often accidents in the area".  It's routine.  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There may have been many accidents, even some fatalities. That section of road has probably been in need of improvement for decades. But not Europe’s worst bus crash for a decade. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh Andrew, if you don't like it, perhaps you should nominate it for deletion? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits; major tragedy receiving coverage, something which readers may be interested in learning more about. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support for now. Article is short, but just barely over stub stage.  It appears to be fully referenced and not missing any details from what is known now.  If the article is expanded as more information comes out (i.e. investigation etc.), consider this a full support.  Reliable news agencies are covering the story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - per high number of deaths. Kind of short but expansion is very possible.BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Start-class article. Hopefully this story and article will develop further given the significance.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Spot news quite widely covered, with substantial fatalities – but general significance may be questionable. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks more notable than 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage, which you voted support to... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing it. – Sca (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - Exceptionally awful crash, as bad as many airplane crashes. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Awful event with a high number of deaths. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no long-term impact, will be gone from the news entirely in a week. Banedon (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support now the expansion work has been done.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the number of victims makes this accident one of those blurb-worthy. And the article is in good condition to be included in the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull only significant to Bulgaria - not international news  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 20:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think that you've been around ITN long enough to know "please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."--WaltCip- (talk)  20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also untrue - it also substantially affects North Macedonia. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Chun Doo-hwan

 * Article is almost entirely unref'd. However, if it can be brought up to scratch in time I'll support blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article needs some ref work. Once its fixed up, I would support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No Blurb Nothing but death at 90 (but I've nothing against a photo RD). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large swathes of the article have no clear references. Agnostic on blurb vs. RD if the article quality is fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose massively undersourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is far from ready: needs a lot of sources. Neutral on blurb: I think that being treated as a "dictator" it has enough notability to have a blurb, but I prefer to read what other users think. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Roh Tae-woo died a month ago and that article had no chance of being sufficient quality for the main page. This article also has massive gaps right now. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per everything mentioned above. Ping me when fixed and I change to support.BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Citations needed fixing required (cross-cites can be helped through sub-articles), otherwise looks blurb-worthy. Gotitbro (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about to be stale and there doesn't seem to be much activity to solve the quality issues... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Volker Lechtenbrink

 * Support - Fully sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Babette Smith

 * This brand-new (thus DYK-eligible) wikibio has 1838 characters (300 words) of readable prose (thus just long enough, not by much) and enough footnotes at expected spots. I wish there is more to read, but it meets the minimum requirements. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks okay for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Indeed, looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Jones (baseball)

 * I would point out that Doug Jones is a relatively common name(including a former US Senator and a Star Trek actor) so I don't think we should just post "Doug Jones" We discussed this issue once before but there doesn't really seem to be a consensus there. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support looks okay for RD. Neutral on whether we should list it as "Doug Jones" or "Doug Jones (baseball)" as there isn't a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name (if there were, we should post with disambiguator, instead of being an WP:EASTEREGG. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted with his middle name (Reid) included in the link. --PFHLai (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Hilda Múdra

 * Weak support it's just about longer than a stub. Everything is well sourced (AGF on non-English language sources), would be good to add a little more content if available, though I imagine that may be difficult if sources are all in Slovakian. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article lacks 3 complete well-rounded paragraphs for minimum content; one of the paragraphs is 3 sentences and another has 2. Could use a couple additional sentences in Career section for depth but close.  Spencer T• C 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage

 * Support Well referenced, vehicle ramming attacks do not occur regularly in the US, and major RS across the world are reporting this. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait only to have more details (eg confirmed number of fatalities, suspected reason for what happened (eg was this intended as an attack, etc?) --M asem (t) 03:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready Support While I agree that this is probably significant enough for ITN, the article is in the midst of a page change discussion and, while there are descriptions of the attack circulating the internet the section on the attack itself is currently only 1 sentence. Rockphed (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing how the article has improved and that some information is starting to come out, I think this is ready. Rockphed (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Notable but article lacks information. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. In the news and significant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article will be updated once more information is known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is barely a stub, appears to be a tragic accident. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose apparently the fall-out from a domestic dispute. No different to a minor (in US terms) mass shooting, while tragic of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see how is this more notable than 2018 Mishui vehicle attack or 2020 Trier attack, and the article in its current shape doesn't convince me at all. This is most definitely not in the same league as 2016 Nice truck attack, 2016 Berlin truck attack, 2017 London Bridge attack and 2017 New York City truck attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- although we should wait until (at least) a suspect is released; as we still don't know what the motive was. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality article is just a stub. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not terrorism, according to "sources", so whilst tragic, it appears to be a worse-than-usual crime gone wrong. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- It seems that around five people died in the attack. The perpetrator has been reported by a few media outlets as Daniel Brooks, a black man who raps under the name "MathboiFly" and has tons of social media posts supporting BLM, and this was in the aftermath of a very notable event where Rittenhouse was cleared as killing two black men in self-defence. OldPeace7068 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Complete extrapolation. Police have said they believe he was on the run having committed a separate crime, nothing to do with Rittenhouse at all.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is there to report the facts. Police and many members of the public initially considered the possibility of Islamic terrorism due to similar incidents in the past involving Muslims, the targeting of a western festival, and the recent rise in Islamic terrorist activity, but police have now confirmed that this is not terrorism related. Similarly, there have been widespread links/controversy made between the rapper and his connections to BLM, and it has been linked to Rittenhouse whether you like it or not. It is part of the story. The killer is a major supporter and activist of BLM. And this happened in the aftermath of Rittenhouse's acquittal. It's all part of the background and developing story. OldPeace7068 (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The police have stated he was fleeing a separate scene.  Conflating this with BLM/Rittenhouse is pure crystal balling.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "two black men" and you'd think we were on a website about facts... CharredWaffle (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Calling this an "attack" may be a misnomer as it appears that the suspect was fleeing the police, not that it was a preplanned attack or terrorism. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. OTOH, at least one report quotes a witness as saying the vehicle seemed to be "targeting people" as it veered from side to side. Also, reports say it crashed through barriers to reach the parade, which seems to indicate that it was indeed an attack, though possibly not a pre-planned one. – Sca (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should (and currently does not) mention the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not at all clear that this is an act of terrorism, and thus not something that would be imminently notable.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on merit and article quality. As of this comment, the incident does not appear to have been a deliberate attack. I would be open to reconsideration if contrary information comes to light. Also, at present the article is little more than an oversized stub. It's not ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Support  ... pending expansion of article, which presently comprises a mere 250 words, i.e. a stub. Seems to be the No. 1 story on main RS sites today. Note 40+ injuries. (Please spare me the de rigueur "U.S.-centric" harangue. This event is unusual and widely covered.) – Sca (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure this deserves to be on the main page and the article doesn't look very good. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If the incident turns out not to be terrorist motivated, I honestly don't see it in Main Page, and if it's, with five dead, I 'mnot very clear, although the number of injured is dantesque. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is confirmed as an unfortunate series of events with no purposeful motivating factor (driver escaping from knife fight and inadvertently ran through parade crowd), then I would agree this is not really something that should be posted. This doesn't mean motiveless events can't ever be posted but I would expect the results to be more devasting (like the various major building fires or collapses that we had). --M asem (t) 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I think the same Masem. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – As an AP update seems to suggest this was the act of a lone nutcase with a record, I've withdrawn my provisonal support. However, it seems we're still in a wait situation, since nine of the injured are listed in critical condition. If the toll were to rise to double digits, we might still want to consider a blurb about this very nasty event. – Sca (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support if the motivation turns out to be terrorism, neutral if otherwise. Mlb96 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A post – by an IT user with no other contributions – on our article's talk page posits racial motivation. Seems highly dubious at this point, though. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see expanded comment above. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. This event is in the news and the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: – Since perp's been ID'd & police say he'll face five counts of first-degree intentional homicide, this is looking potentially more significant. – Sca (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per The Independent this guy had a domestic dispute, and drove his car like a lunatic. Not terror-related, just an idiot behind the wheel.  Not significant, tragic, but will never make the top 1000 things that happened on Planet Earth in 2021, let alone the top 250.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - a mass-casualty event, receiving international coverage (e.g., BBC), a suspect is being charged, and the article has been improved to sufficient quality. Levivich 20:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - rare (even in the US) mass-casualty event. Article quality is decent. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment a road traffic accident in the US is not rare. Mass-casualty events in the US are far from rare.  It's pretty obvious that giving this tragic yet non-terrorist/non-BLM/non-protest/non-deliberate accident undue prominence is not what the encyclopedia was designed to do.  Of course, you can dig into the BBC website and find coverage, it's all "shock and think of the children" in the US, but the rest of the world has moved on the moment it was clear it was a sad instance of a crime somewhere else having shitty side-effects, and literally nothing more. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The last time I remember a similar incident happened in the US was late 2017 when somebody plowed into a crowd in Virginia after a violent demonstration got broken up. We posted the event that it was tangentially related to, largely on the strength of somebody plowing their car into a crowd and killing someone.  You supported posting it. Rockphed (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Charlottesville car attack, that was about a man deliberately setting out to ram people. This is about a man trying to escape the scene of a domestic incident and getting into a road traffic accident.  The two are incomparable.  But good try. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agreeing with previous posters, posting this event would seem to be giving undue weight to a tragic traffic accident. Comparison with the Charlottesville incident from several years back is unfair, given the explicitly political motivations of the earlier event. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral and Wait Yes, with the additional details that have come to light, this is literally a domestic issue that had decidedly more tragic consequences. However, that is additional details. The initial response, and the fact there were several fatalities during a celebration, caught on camera and shared around the world before anyone knew what was going on, has made this major news and a source of intrigue. I think we need to wait to see if the news stations drop their coverage now that there is less intrigue and crisis; if it has effectively left the news cycle by end of day, take this as an oppose, but if it is still on the news banners, take this as support. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4 of the 12 paragraphs in this article start "On November 2X". Typical anti-American bias from the Brits (which is far from rare) notwithstanding, the quality is not there yet.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Tragic, criminally-induced mass-casualty. Significant details are now known. CoatCheck (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait It's very clear that there won't be consensus as is, but there may be more of one as things develop. Wait for now. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. This is the deadliest vehicle ramming incident in the United States or Canada since 2018 and the deadliest in the US since 2017. 142.182.136.105 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I see there's been a tragic bus crash in Bulgaria which has killed at least 45 people. It would be safe to presume that supporters of this accident would support the posting of the Bulgarian crash, right?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominate an article on it so that I can assess the quality. Without knowing what we are posting on the main page, it is impossible for me to know if the article is appropriate.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Four hours ago.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. My incompetency continues to be my defining attribute and sole notable trait.  Carry on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! – Sca (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need to laugh. You, Sca, among all people, are fully aware of my incompetence.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support – Still in the news. It's a complicated story but a notable event, IMO. Leaning toward support, for all the diff that would make here. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for multiple fatalities, high number of serious injuries, and widespread news coverage. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A tragic event, but it is not a mass-casualty event. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - We have support and oppose !votes that directly contradict each other in terms of the notability of this event. Some say this is very notable. Others say this is not at all notable. How is an admin supposed to derive consensus from this? --WaltCip- (talk)  15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By executive fiat. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well most of the support votes are from Americans (of those who have userpages), and almost all of the opposes are from non-Americans. So I guess it'll be a coin toss on whether an American or non-American admin decides... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How about one from a neutral country, say Liechtenstein? – Sca (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I voted to oppose as an American ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you must be from Manchester, N.H., then. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This at first got attention because it might have been terrorism related, no problem there. But all we are left with now is an accident which leaves 5 death: while tragic, this is sadly an everyday occurrence. We have e.g. this week a ferry accident in Sri Lanka (at least 6 death), 7 death in Greece when migrants flee the police, 22 deaths on Lake Kivu, nine deaths in a fire in Bulgaria, 10 deaths in China after a car crash, ... I see no reason to post this, as it is not exceptional, has no lasting importance, and isn't even very interesting (without the terrorism angle). It's a sad tragedy, but a very common one. Fram (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is WP:TOOSOON to make a determination as to whether this was an act of terror or not. Terrorism or not, the ramming appears to be deliberate, and it has made national and international headlines. Aasim (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Fram, tragic, but not significant enough at a global scale: we don't even have articles about many similar tragedies elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sad but ephemeral. Ericoides (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Pulled) 2021 Bulgarian general election (presidential second round)

 * Support. Major election in an EU member state. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Do we post presidential elections even if the president has mostly symbolic roles? Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, heads of state elections are posted even if they are ceremonial/wield little power, it mostly depends on the article quality itself which should be more than sufficient. Two examples are the Italian presidental election and Czech presidental election, both having similar powers to the Bulgarian one.  BastianMAT (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak support this article has been on front page for a week already, but I guess the second round presidency vote means that it's ITN eligible again. Article looks to have been sufficiently updated about the presidential second round vote. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR. We no longer post all elections for head of state- we post the election/choosing of the official with actual executive power, according to List of current heads of state and government; in Bulgaria that is the PM, not the president. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case, I oppose this nomination, and it shouldn't have been tagged as ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it is a recent change that not everyone may be aware of. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I thought going by older posts that head of state elections are still part of ITNR but if its been removed, no problem and thanks for the headsup for future nominations. BastianMAT (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw this now. I must have missed the change or forgot about it. So my comment on other presidents is not relevant here. --Tone 17:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that’s what got me confused to when I ITNR nominated this. In the past as you and I mentioned, similar head of state elections (with similar powers) such as Moldova(November 2020), Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic have been posted. 331dot said the removal of ceremonial head of state elections from ITNR were ’recently’ done, so the change must have not been too long ago for us to not know that.BastianMAT (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Blurb on MainPage was updated and moved up --PFHLai (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * there wasn't consensus to do this update- the presidential election is not ITNR, and there was not consensus here that it's important enough for ITN. We should leave it where it is, so it can roll off soon, instead of moving it up so it'll stay on ITN for another week... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Post posting support If the election was stand-alone, we would probably post it. This is just the case where the general election were held together with the first round of presidential, so there is a single article. I don't see a problem. --Tone 14:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt we would post this as a standalone item. He may be head of state, but he has no power. It's the Prime Minister of Bulgaria who would be posted automatically. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact he has been in de facto power since the 2021 April elections as he appointed his friend as acting prime minister. The de jure power he wields is similar to those in Italy and Czech Republic, where he gets to nominate the prime minister and supreme court judges, he can veto laws (although parliament can override) and he of course serves as head of state, don’t forget Bulgaria even has a vice president. In the past we have posted the Italian presidental and Czech Republic presidental elections, both are parliamantary republics too. I thought it was ITNR, but 331dot mentioned that head of state elections (where the head of state is not head of goverment) was recently removed from ITNR. Italian presidental election posted Czech Republic presidental election posted BastianMAT (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) As far as I remember we post both if the articles are ok. We've posted presidents of Austria and Germany, which have a similar role, for example. Furthermore, the president of Germany is elected by Bundestag, not by a popular vote. --Tone 17:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull update and Revert back to previous version per Joseph2302. This guy is just a figure head, and we already posted the main election result. There was no reason to have bumped this up, and the result is not ITN/R so needs consensus, which it doesn't have. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull update and agree with above, not seeing consensus here for this to have even been posted in the first instance. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond the issue of whether it should be on the main page, the blurb is clumsy. "In Bulgaria," is redundant. Where else but in Bulgaria would you be elected President of Bulgaria?  Schwede 66  17:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored old blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull Not a head of state change but in the same spirit This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we need some kind of page break to restart voting. A lot of the opposition above was to the unilateral action and not the nom itself. as for me,
 * Oppose while there are some states with significant power invested in the secondary office, this is not one of them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't particularly mind about the unilateral action myself - it was made in good faith - and my oppose is purely on the merits of the case, for much the same reasons as you. I suggest we move on from this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gurmeet Bawa

 * Weak oppose Needs expansion regarding career/music style and some copyediting. Article has info in the introduction that is not found in the body.  Spencer T• C 23:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I had a chance to work on the article this morning. Meets basic hygiene expectations. Have a look at your leisure. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Support Looks good, meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 22:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Sudan political agreement

 * Support However, I do think that the October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état should be mentioned in the blurb. Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a major omission to not include it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I updated altblurb 1. Hope that works.BastianMAT (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support article looks okay, changes to head of state are ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> ( with no details about the new agreementtalk) 20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a positive development, and certainly news after the coup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment The PM is released, probably with his powers curtailed. There are parallels to the 1991 coup in Togo. Joofjoof (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 World Rally Championship

 * Support - it's a global prestige sporting championship and this article is very well presented and detailed. --PushingPace (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks more than good enough, and event is ITNR. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Longdon

 * Oppose more reliable sources needed. The entire Discography section is sourced to Discogs, which according to our article on it is a crowdsourced database i.e. not a RS. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I find it odd that we can reference a book but not a CD gatefold, I've found sources for the entire discography and added them. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 22:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cedric Robinson (guide)

 * Long enough and with footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. Good find, Ktin. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Disappearance of Peng Shuai

 * Support - Article is in good condition and the news is prominent, exceptional, and of great public interest around the world. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article appear in news, but headlines on CBC, CNN, BBC are still focused on Rittenhouse Trial for now, although this may change. Otherwise, the blurb should describe whats happening now (the reactions), that she has not been publicly heard is not ITN as that is a few days old. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I fail to see how this is any more worthy of ITN than the Rittenhouse trial, which was also not worthy of ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't oppose because you think another nomination should be posted and you don't think this one is as worthy. Judge nomination on its own merit. The two are about completely different things. -- KTC (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think either are worthy of being posted. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Jehochman. However I'm not quite sure about the term "disappears" here, even if I personally think the Chinese state did exactly that. -- KTC (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Jehochman. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is far more notable than "another white American kills black Americans" and regardless of the fact that headlines are currently obsessing over the US proclivity to allow kids to routinely assassinate people without any kind of criminal conviction, Peng's disappearance is genuinely newsworthy and encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters to this nomination, but Rittenhouse's victims were white.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * *cough cough* Rittenhouse's victims were white *cough cough* – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said he wasn't talking about Young Dolph's routine assassin? We don't know he wasn't white. We don't know if he had other black American victims. Memphis is all about unsolved mysteries! AGF. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article needs a lot of work, as there are multiple sections with no inline citations.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support While this might be unduly implicative of the Chinese state being connected, if RSs are making that connection this definitely belongs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I would support this if the article has some ref work done. There's sections that are unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is newsworthy for sure but blurbing that someone "disappeared" after making an accusation seems like a WP:BLPCRIME issue to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely agree it's an awkward thing to summarise in a way that fits BLP while keeping it clear why the event is notable, I'd welcome suggestions for alternative phrasing. I realise this is a fairly limited action, but for that reason I deliberately didn't link to the person she accused in the proposed blurb. Blythwood (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per LaserLegs, there's something wrong about posting speculation that someone disappeared straight after they made accusations. With little reliable information, this seems like a BLP issue to post it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too speculative, with overtones of anti-China sentiment, and with too many unknowns. Needs far more clarification before it is posted. And a guarantee that ITN will publish a full We Were Wrong! statement and retraction on the Main page when it is found out she has just eloped with her boyfriend or girlfriend, as the case may be. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly if China "disappeared" her, that would be a story, but this appears to be Western nations making a demand of China and there's no hard evidence she has been killed or imprisoned or the like. We don't post this type of speculative stories. --M asem (t) 02:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Per wide coverage in RSes. Normchou   💬 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the incident has a separate article. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 07:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — article looks decent enough for ITN standards by my eye, wide coverage in RSes. If the choice of "disappears" is undesirable, then "is reported missing" might be a potential alternative (posted as altblurb). &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that suggests she was reported missing in the police report sense, not that Novak Djokovic described her as "a missing person" to reporters. Not a bad idea. Just a bit ambiguous. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support, in the news, top page news in many countries. The issue is she has suddenly disappeared after accusing a senior cabinet minister of a serious crime, and the involved parties are public figures indept of this incident, so there is nothing wrong as long as it is sourced and not stated as truth. Peng's disappearance and the resulting sports diplomacy pressure and boycott threats are sufficient Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever studied the difference between correlation and causation? HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I have and I wonder if it's possible to have a maths competition over Wikipedia lol. I never said there was a causation, although I am sure many on Wikipedia have noted your hard-left POV eg trying to get all right of centre Australian newspapers struck off at RSN. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am adding sources to the career section Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, Joseph2302. Something that may have happened isn't blurbworthy, no matter how widely it's hyped. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, Sca. It could be the start of something noteworthy, or it could be nothing. We can post when it turns out to be something noteworthy if it does. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Do we post news around here anymore? Sometimes I do wonder.--WaltCip- (talk)  18:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable, good article. Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The article has unref'd sections about her tennis career, but the linked section is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We shouldn't (and don't) post articles with multiple unsourced sections.  The fact that the section linked in bold is referenced is irrelevant. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Let's wait until we are 100% sure what has happened to her. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Global Times continues to point to her, this time at a restaurant with a coach and friends, seemingly quite visible. Western speculation now turns to whether she's safe, though, or free from external interference or to be believed. All very personal and hard-to-answer questions, for anybody anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's just one person in a world where much worse things happen in other places like Ethiopia. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Videos of Peng Shuai have supposedly surfaced. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support However, I propose removing the term 'Chinese' in front of Peng Shuai. It does not add to her character or her identity as a professional tennis player. Something along the lines of "Professional tennis player Peng Shuai disappears after accusing former Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli of sexual assault." would be better imo. However, we should also note the videos posted by Global Times editors (primarily those tweeted by editor-in-chief Hu Xijin) and their aftermath. JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – She's reappeared, online at least. End of story? – Sca (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wide coverage by RSes and notable. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still too murky and speculative, with little general impact. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Leaving aside anything else, there is video evidence of her out and about so she hasn't been "disappeared" and isn't "missing". Whether or not something else is happening is in the realm of speculation, and would require a separate blurb. Also, very large swathes of the article on her career lack even a single citation. Is it not time to close this as no consensus already?
 * Preceding posted by User:BSMRD – Sca (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: – Discussion tops 1,500 words. Posts running 4:3 against. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator I'm willing to close soon now there's video of her alive (barring any big development, like it rapidly emerging this is an impersonator). Someone being in big trouble with their government isn't ITN-worthy, although I still think someone being forced-disappeared could be. Blythwood (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Kyle Rittenhouse verdict

 * Support article is comprehensive, updated, and well-referenced. A few WP:PROSELINE-issues, but not enough to downgrade the quality too much.  Topic has been, and is being covered extensively by quality, reliable news sources in a way that would indicate this is a significant story.  Checks all of the boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose to international notability. It won’t be listed on 2021 per previous discussions of it not having international notability. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See the instructions above "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." "International notability" is not a criteria for posting at ITN, nor has it ever been. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well my direct opinion is that it is not notable. My reasoning is the discussion that already took place on the 2021 talk page. I also have previous discussions months ago where things highly notable to one country aren’t included. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion of the page 2021. The criteria established for other parts of Wikipedia don't apply here.  If you wish to change the criteria used for the ITN box, then start a discussion at WT:ITN.  Votes without valid rationales are given little weight.  It's fine if you have a useful rationale, but merely "I don't think it's notable enough" does not provide any useful guidance to admins when deciding consensus.  I mean, you're allowed to say any silly thing you want, I suppose, but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously if it isn't valid. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well since you don’t like my reasoning, just let me say “no”. People have supported ITN’s in the past without giving a reason, so my “Oppose” in this case will not have a reason. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's a free world. People do nonsensical things all of the time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I couldn’t agree more. In reality, my oppose on this comes more to combat American Wikipedia vs English Wikipedia.  There is a essay on Wikipedia that I recently read that has that meaning.  Not everything that happens in America is notable for Wikipedia/2021/ITN/Portal Current Events, etc….Elijahandskip (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose (at least on news of just the verdict). It was a highly watched case in the U.S., but it was clear early on to many legal experts that are crying foul on judicial behavior. It is very very likely to see an appeal and so this is not the end. This is not like the result from the very public George Floyd protests (which we posted and had ongoing about those, and the verdict). That said, there had been concerns there may be rioting following an acquittal, and while I'm not seeing any immediate news on that, a major riot (akin to the LA riots after King's verdict) would likely be the newsworthy factor here. --M asem (t) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There literally cannot be any appeal of a not guilty verdict. This is a core principle of how double jeopardy is handled in American jurisprudence.  A not guilty jury verdict is basically always final.  See .  There are some exceedingly rare exceptions to this, but none of them would apply in this case.  An ordinary jury verdict of "not guilty" like this one (even in a controversial trial) is treated as basically sacrosanct, and there can be no appeals by the government. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for the calls for a mistrial that are being entered now. I know there's complexities with double jeopardy there, but that's still on the books and that itself can be a legal process. --M asem (t) 19:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, what? There were calls for a mistrial by Rittenhouse's defense team prior to the jury verdict coming back.  Now that the verdict is in their client's favor, I doubt highly they will press forward with these requests.  Indeed, articles such as this one note "The verdict also meant that Judge Bruce Schroeder did not have to rule on the defense's motions for a mistrial."   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. If we had to have an American court psychodrama today, the better option from a world-historical perspective would probably be the acquittal of the purported killers of Malcolm X. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose AGF, but this is such a small story in the grand scheme.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. It is too early to tell what impact this will have. It could be a Rodney King-like result where acquittal of the accused leads to broad social unrest, or it could pass with a shrug. I expect that we will know within 24 hours. BD2412  T 19:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close US-centric nomination, not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and renominate once the riots get into full swing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Far from blurb-worthy, lack of deep international coverage and interest. U.S-centric. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very US centric. It's probably not even the most important news in the US right now, let alone the world. I agree with Piron above that the clearing of Malcom X's killers is more noteworthy in the grand scheme. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the most important US news event ongoing right now. Every major US news outlet is covering the story and many have been broadcasting portions of the trial for the past several days.XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support certainty an extremely notable event.XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Actually not even sure this is going to be more than a couple days' news in the US. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Trial of a decade, widely reported across the world. Even my local news station in Russia reported on the topic. The only reason this is leaning oppose is because the verdict contradicts the biases of the local editors. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feels like there's a "Trial of the Decade" going on every other year lately... DarkSide830 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edgardo Labella

 * Support Seems ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest

 * Comment: One of the major farmers' unions behind the protests, Bharatiya Kisan Union, has promised to continue protesting till the laws are actually repealed (source). I wonder if we should put this blurb up now, or when Parliament repeals them and the farmers go home (don't have strong opinions either way, but I lean towards waiting). If we're going to put it up now, I've uploaded this screengrab of Modi's announcement from his CC-BY YouTube channel; we could use it. Btw - Dracophyllum was the only updater, not DiplomatTesterMan. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 07:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the update to put back in ongoing instead of a final blurb would be fine too if preferable. And DiplomatTesterMan did more updates on the article before that, he still deserves some credit too I think. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article is not sufficiently updated. There is currently a 1 sentence mention in the lead of the repeal of the laws, and no mention of it, nor of any follow-on protests, anywhere in the body of the article.  Before this can be posted, the latest developments would need to be added to the article appropriately.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 Have you read the repeal section?  Draco phyllum  20:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your response is 8 hours after Jayron32's, . The section may have not existed when Jayron commented. But then again, I am not going to take the time to check if it did exist at 12:18 PM UTC on 19 Nov 2021. Tube·of·Light 02:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The announcement by itself has no legal value. Parliament has to repeal the laws, which it will probably do in the coming Winter Session. Also some farmer's unions are continuing protests until the laws are repealed and minimum support prices reconsidered. So it might be better to wait, but no strong opinion either way. --Jose Mathew (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait and see what the impact of this is. Right now, there isn't enough information on what will happen as a result of this. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose --LaserLegs (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * to international notability. It won’t be listed on 2021 per previous discussions of it not having international notability.
 * India-centric nomination, not important enough for ITN
 * and renominate once the riots get into full swing.
 * per above. Far from blurb-worthy, lack of deep international coverage and interest. India-centric
 * Very India centric. It's probably not even the most important news in India right now, let alone the world.
 * Actually not even sure this is going to be more than a couple days' news in India
 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to remember that 1/7 of the people on this planet are Indians. We don’t post a great deal of India related stories. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly I didn't see the same PDM feedback from you above for another "country-centric" nomination from the worlds third most populous country. In fact, we do post many India-centric stories here, this one having festered in ongoing for nearly a year. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Invariably it is announcements that get more attention than the actual act, most of the time(we post elections when the result is known, not when the results are official/certified). If Modi renegs, that will likely be newsworthy itself. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - as Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI says, the BKU is still protesting. I would prefer waiting till the laws are actually repealed (and FWIW, these laws are being repealed just before the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections and elections in some other states, which are crucial for Modi's political party). Tube·of·Light 02:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On article quality – and as others have noted because the laws haven't taken effect. The article, at more than 10,000 words, is grossly overwritten, overblown and overweight – presumably by partisans who view the topic as a cause célèbre that calls for a crusade. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) November 2021 lunar eclipse

 * Oppose – I didn't see it. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC) ...  ;-)
 * Yeah. We always seem to post eclipses well after they conclude, with the snarky undertone of "and, ha ha ha, you missed it!". —Cryptic 13:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why THIS MUCH INDENT? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality the visibility section is two unsourced paragraphs, would need a lot more sourced information about the event (rather than just an endless list of "Related eclipses"). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we post lunar eclipses, and as Cryptic noted posting them after they're over seems very useless to readers. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe we'll post the next one in 500+ years. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose lunar eclipses are even less interesting than manned spaceflights. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that lunar eclipses often presage globally cataclysmic events, such as permanent cancellation of The Boat Race, which I fear may now be in the offing for 2022. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, lunar eclipses and the Boat Race are entirely unrelated. And of course, there will be no "permanent cancellation of The Boat Race", that's total bollocks, but perhaps inline with your regular contributions.  As you perhaps should know already, The Boat Race 2022 is scheduled for next year, and if COVID stymies it, one imagines it will simply be moved to the River Great Ouse once again.  I'm unclear as to where you think that a lunar eclipse would be a portent for the permanent cancellation of an event which has been conducted since 1829, even before the Third Reich failed to play nicely.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ease up, Ramblo, it was a joke. (And BTW, the Third Reich and this topic are entirely unrelated.) – Sca (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and this topic and the Boat Race are completely unrelated. And it wasn't funny in any sense.  So explain yourself. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support, this lunar eclipse has gotten significant news coverage. Both visibility paragraphs each have a single reference at the end. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Buck (restaurateur)

 * Support looks good enough for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Jimmie Durham

 * Comment: Needs more citations.  Spencer T• C 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are still a handful of {cn} tags that need to be addressed. Please add more refs to this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jay Last

 * Support Thorough depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 20:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Convicted assassins of Malcolm X exonerated

 * Oppose this is DYK material. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good thing this article is DYK eligible. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is, but how often are those convicted in a major assassination exonerated? The assassination itself, of course, would have been ITN-worthy, as would the convictions of the accused. To me, this is on the same level. BD2412  T 21:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just remembered it won't make DYK as much of the content was copy/pasted from the main article, and it's not 5x from that. ITN it is! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was also created nine months ago so any expansion at that time is far too old; you could conceivably get it through DYK if it passes as a Good Article though. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was just moved to mainspace. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only would this by DYK material, it's not even eligible per Muboshgu. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Retroactive. Lacks current significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Malcolm X is still dead. The two who are being exonerated are not independently notable and were released decades ago, so the actual impact is minimal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This is receiving a fair amount of coverage (main headline in the NYT and Daily News) and it looks like a decent article, just one cite tag that I can see.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While likely an important move for proper justice, not really that significant in the long run. --M asem (t) 14:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. If it was found that John Wilkes Booth did not assassinate Lincoln, or that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate JFK, it would be posted, and I don't see how this is different. The history books are not often changed in such a manner. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those two examples were incomparably more significant, as both victims were heads of state. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Malcolm X was not a head of state but he was highly influential in the cause of civil rights. The point is that history is not often corrected as it was here. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Modest Genius. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Young Dolph

 * Oppose most of the prose is text version of the releases of each piece of music, not much meaningful prose, especially for such a young death which one imagines isn't coincidental to his line of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have since added more detail to the article, would you take another look? Thanks,  Spencer T• C 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Have added more info about his life and career.  Spencer T• C 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Death covered by many notable and reliable sources. Article seems to be improved as well.--WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) November 2021 Pacific Northwest floods

 * Oppose – Not ITN Worthy ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose With one dead this is clearly not ITN-worthy and not notable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose no internet for a handful of people? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Support in addition the flooding, given Canada's geography now cuts off Vancouver by land from the rest of Canada. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Vancouver is floating apart? Where will it end up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In China, of course. It's the trend these days. – Sca (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose not important enough for ITN. If it wasn't in North America, something this unimportant wouldn't have even been nominated. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps the blurb can mention the evacuation of thousands of residents and the destruction of infrastructure. Power outage and a small death toll won't cut it. --PFHLai (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is quite a significant event in Canada, with reports that it could become the most expensive natural disaster in Canadian history, the death toll is expected to rise, along with wide ranging effects on supply chains and transportation networks. If I recall correctly, I think we did post the 2013 Alberta floods, for precedent. Connormah (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess "could be" is key here. If it does become the most expensive natural disaster after electing Trudeau in the history of Canada, then it's well placed for a blurb.  Maybe now is premature.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait Living through this, it's a pretty devastating disaster, with all road access cut off to and from the Port of Vancouver, which is having a major impact on supply chains across Western Canada. But I don't think this meets the standard previously set for ITN just yet, although there are reports that the death toll is expected to rise.  There's also reports of an imminent dike breach into a large city.  As such, I'd suggest that we wait. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Lots of damage & dislocation but so far only one fatal. – Sca (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait If this gets worse and deadlier, then I will support. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait per NorthernFalcon & Sca. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I would further comment that given Port of Vancouver is affected (the fourth largest port in North America by volume of goods) the supply chain issues are pretty notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, just “affected” the fourth in North America. Not America. Not even in the world. Let's not overestimate it. Storms are storms, and it happen...a lot of things. International impact is very low. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Kosmos 1408

 * Support in principle , as this is a significant event for the space industry (more so than Crew-3 that we already have on the template). However the article is pretty lightweight and could use some expansion. It also needs a source for the claim that Russia was responsible for the test - we can't claim something in the blurb that isn't cited in the article. I would also remove 'dangerous' from the blurb as that's quite a strong accusation. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Article seems fine now, though as I was one of the users updating it an independent assessment would be welcome. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; the use of an anti-satellite weapon(even as a test) is rare and few countries possess such technology. Russia isn't denying it. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the use is rare and few countries possess such technology. Yet, I remember a similar test from India a couple of years ago was rejected as the technology "has been around for a while." If I recall correctly, there had been significant debate about debris back then too. 2405:201:4013:8087:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only comment on the nomination in front of me; I can't speak to past ones at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle though article needs to include that Russia shot it down (right now, the article just says it broke up). And other cn tags in article would need fixing. Though I agree, this is way more important/notable/covered in news sources than Crew-3. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I started putting this through DYK earlier today, see Template:Did you know nominations/Kosmos 1408, since I haven't enjoyed participating in previous ITN discussions. But if you want this here, then the DYK can be withdrawn. I've updated the template above, since I started the article yesterday. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One option would be to merge this into the existing Crew-3 ISS mission blurb. If Kosmos 1408 is not bolded then it can still be a DYK too. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose merging those blurbs - these are separate events. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also oppose merging- they're separate events, and this one is more important, so shouldn't be stuck on the end of some less important and newswirthy article that's only on the front page because it was alledgedly ITNR (even though that ITNR criteria was demonstrated to be unfit for purpose). And if this does reach front page, then DYK would no longer be eligible, but until that point, don't see a need to withdraw the DYK nom. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We could remove the Crew-3 blurb and replace it with this one when this is ready to go (assuming Crew-3 is still on ITN). Yeah, it doesn't get its "full time" there, but I agree that it doesn't make sense to merge, but having two ISS-related things could be seen as overwhelming the box. --M asem (t) 14:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Fairly widely covered, but broader significance of a "threat" to the ISS isn't so apparent. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even a fleck of paint could seriously damage the ISS, one of the most expensive objects ever constructed. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. This is very significant news and an interesting story of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per above, just needs better fleshing out of the article. --M asem (t) 13:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Upon reflection, it seems to be a serious threat all right, but ... can we post something that hasn't had a tangible effect ... yet? – Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: My question is, did Putin authorize this stupid 'test' – or was it just an act of heedless military apparatchiks down in the bureaucracy?  (Russia is an oligarchy that has a country – a country that has an enormous military.) – Sca (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The way I'm reading it, the story is more that Russia has appeared to have violated a treaty related to space-bound weapons, in addition to this being a story of interest to space exploration (the potential of damage to the ISS that forced the crew to shelter for at least two orbits as it passed through the debris field). --M asem (t) 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough. However, the threat to human lives (including two Russians!) seems more compelling in terms of reader interest. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From our article on the Outer Space Treaty: "Although it forbids establishing military bases, testing weapons and conducting military maneuvers on celestial bodies, the treaty does not expressly ban all military activities in space, nor the establishment of military space forces or the placement of conventional weapons in space". Testing an anti-satellite weapon on your own target is not against any treaty, just regarded as irresponsible. Note that the US, China and India have all conducted similar tests with no legal repercussions or UN censure. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose no longer fresh, not really in the news, rolled off a while ago and probably better suited for DYK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your time frame for "no longer fresh"? The BBC article is only 12 hours old and the event itself occurred yesterday.  It's certainly a newer event than anything currently in the ITN box... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC published two more articles about this story in just the last hour . That seems pretty fresh. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It happened yesterday, and is very much still in the news. Much more so than the posted blurbs, such as the NYC Marathon on 7 November for example. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OH sure, you can dig into websites and find more analysis, but it's not headline news and hasn't been for most of the day now. Even the article makes it clear that the "main event" has passed.  Biggest headlines in the UK are now that Johnson is proposing to prevent MPs from getting paid consultancy jobs.  This story is no longer even on the BBC News homepage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but sufficient; it seems to have developed some since the earlier notes. Topic is being covered by reliable news sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. Article text comprises 340 words, of which 115 are background, leaving a mere 230 words about the current threat. IMO, too thin for MP promotion. Second, we shouldn't blurb something that hasn't had an impact (yet). – Sca (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Given that the current situation could continue for quite some time, perhaps after a bit we should consider posting this directly to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever political fallout there has been is pretty much so far just a short but important burst (for blurb posting), but there's no sign this is going to escalate into something further, in comparison to the nuclear submarine sale a few months back. --M asem (t) 19:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait is there a real danger debris hits other satellites soon, or is this just "an abundance of caution"? Will there be significant geo-political ramifications from the test?  Until one of those is "yes", I think we should wait. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Everywhere is at risk for disaster, but this info is nothing like disaster actually happening. Political story, and involving two countries who always bicker. Could change if the ISS is destroyed or something stronger than words breaks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this an RD nom for the destruction of Kosmos 1408? If so, its "career section" needs an expansion to describe how it was used while still in orbit and operational.--PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Questionable significance as far as potential impacts, especially given at the moment it is just predictive. I would assume that the test itself is not sufficient for ITN, so I'm on the "Oppose" side here. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support even if nothing happens to the ISS, ASAT weapon tests don't happen every day, or even every year. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly magnitudes more important than the multitude of launches posted every now and then on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support significant, made the news and the article Kosmos 1408 is short but adequate. Given the military nature of this satellite and its destruction, we can't expect to know that many details. Of the proposed blurbs, only alt 1 is good. --LukeSurlt c 10:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle this is a significant story BUT it simply cannot be posted with a blurb of this quality. Its language is misleading and makes it sound as if a functional satellite was attacked, but rather a defunct satellite was destroyed as part of a weapons test... slightly different. Possibly also include the name of the missile system, if known, and replace "Russia" with the actual agency overseeing the test. JMonkey2006 (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose a different blurb. Or we could simply add 'defunct' before the name of the satellite. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Absent from main RS sites on Wednesday; no longer in the news. Seems a minor issue without tangible effects. Neither target article is really about this event. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per JMonkey. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The Kessler syndrome may have been triggered: "The Kessler syndrome is troublesome because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of the collision. The fragments can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term viability of satellites in particular low Earth orbits extremely low." Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Russia is weaponizing space. Whether or not they were the first to do it - and presumably they weren't - this is an indication of a change in global affairs when it comes to outer space.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know (see anti-satellite weapon), the first ASAT test was in 1959, and was conducted by the US. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment any admins around here to post this? I oppose its inclusion as it's already stale in my opinion, but there's a pretty clear consensus here and the longer it's left unposted, the staler it becomes.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb2. --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The space junkies emerge triumphant. – Sca (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC) ;-)

RD: Katarina Blagojević

 * Comment: IMO, an RD nom should include in the prose at least one sentence, footnoted, of course, about when/where/how the subject died. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dzifa Attivor

 * Weak support Would like to see some more info about her role as Minister of Transport but everything else in the article meets minimum standards and looks okay.  Spencer T• C 03:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support just about enough in the article for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julio Lugo

 * Comment lots of cn tags at the moment, which would need to be resolved. Also, a lot of headings, seems way too many to me (as lots of sections are 1-2 sentences saying he signed for someone and then played a few or no games, then left). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I can try to address the noted items tonight (US eastern timezone) and will leave a note here once updated. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I finished sourcing the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Along with sourcing added by (thank you) I've added relevant details about Lugo's baseball career; the article looks to be in good shape now. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Proud to have put another LUGO on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Bulgarian general election

 * Support Article has minimum of prose describing the leadup, results, and aftermath. More writing would be nice, but it's passable for the main page.  Everything is referenced and it has prose, which is more than can be said for many of the nominations of this type.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is it time to start the English wikibio for the other co-leader of We Continue the Change, Asen Vasilev? The coalition has two leaders, not just Petkov. Do we want to wait till a government is formed? --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess yeah, he deserves one too, but Petkov is the primary focus here as he is the one seeking to become prime minister (per https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/14/bulgarian-elections-newly-formed-pp-party-neck-and-neck-with-right-wing-gerb-party). The truth is we don't even know yet if they will be successful forming a goverment, but we posted both the Czech party SPOLU and the last Bulgarian election when ITN won the most seats as the election itself is ITNR, so going by that this nomination/blurb should be suitable to make it out to the front page.BastianMAT (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in great shape. I think the easiest way to solve what PFHLai exposes is to put in the blurb that Petkov is the "co-leader", thus making it understood that he is not the only one leading the coalition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How about not mentioning either co-leaders in the blurb? (See alt1) I'm not sure about using the proposed photo of Petkov on MainPage, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We can do that too if there are any issues with the image, no problem. BastianMAT (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb1 Just updated the numbers of the results, the article is well-written --Vacant0 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good enough, would say this is ready. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb1. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Argentinian Midterm Election

 * Oppose As of now, there is no prose synopsis of the results of the main election. There is only a prose synopsis of the primaries.  If that is fixed, this can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have added an synopsis now. BastianMAT (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Senate section? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as and when the article gets cleaned up a bit This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is cleaned up a bit. Remember, go for it!. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I wanted to nominate this but hasitated. Are these midterms considered general elections? Half of the seats in the lower chamber and 1/3 of the upper chamber are up for election and our article defines general elections as "elections in which all or most members of a political body are chosen." Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I half-wondered if such "mid-term" elections were covered by ITNR. If they are, perhaps that should also be explicitly noted at ITNR.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, mid terms elections are part of it, it is notable too as the ruling party have lost their majority. Here is the US one that was also posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2018#(Posted)_2018_US_Midterm_Elections.BastianMAT (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But that was mainly because it involved "all or most members of a political body are chosen". This doesn't appear to be the case here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you see on it. The mid term senate elections in US only feature 34 members up running for election. In Argentina it was half of the congress and enough for an significant change in both political bodies (ruling party losing control of both the house and the senate).BastianMAT (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't matter what happened in the US, how does this meet the requirements at ITNR? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, in the US midterms all House seats+1/3 of Senate seats were up for election so that would be considered as "most members of an electoral body" but here it's only half. Does that still count as general elections? If so it's ITN/R, if not who knows. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, it is arguable for both sides. At least based on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midterm_election, Argentina[1] (legislative and local election) falls under the heading General elections (which makes it ITNR) alongside the United States (legislative and local election) which was posted.BastianMAT (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is arguable here, it doesn't meet the definition in ITNR and it's a mid-term, not a general election by any normal definition (despite what "Wikipedia" might say). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – First four grafs back into the results and seem needlessly complex. – Sca (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the table in the infobox violates MOS:COLHEAD by having column headers in the middle of the table. And we shouldn't consider putting this on front page until the results are complete, as a minimum. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurbs are needlessly complex. Would support if blurb was simpler. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added AltBlurb 3 as a simplified version of AltBlurb 1, which was the better of the prior three for highlighting the historical significance of the results. Let me know what you think. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: W. Sterling Cary

 * Long enough and has footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. Please be encouraged to also nominate this brand new article for DYK while it is still new enough to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing

 * Support this has been declared a terrorist incident, and is generating lots of news (it's prominent on the BBC News site still). I believe it's the first bombing in England since 2017 Manchester Arena one, and caused the UK terror threat level to be increased. Article itself is good enough quality. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support given that they have assigned terrorist motives to this now. My attempt at a more concise/ITN-style altblurb given, please edit as needed. --M asem (t) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Police said the motivation for the attack was unclear but it had been declared as a terrorist incident." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient length and quality, properly referenced, and item is in the news currently. No objections here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Has also been nominated at DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt still in the news. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a minor terrorist attack that caused only one casualty. Now we are not concerned about the number of victims? Certainly "is in the news", but I don't think it has the same relevance as other terrorist incidents that have occurred that have not been approved to be on Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The perpetrator was killed and the taxi driver was hospitalised. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Failed attack which caused one injury and killed the attacker. It's not clear what the target was or who it was supposed to terrorise. If this hadn't been declared a terrorist incident it would be minor local news. I encourage the existing DYK nom instead. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of terrorism tag, I suspect this would have been national news. But of course, we will never know. The fact is it is big national news. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was declared a terrorist attack, which adds notability to the incident. Jbvann05  20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, it just grants the police additional powers and generates more headlines. The actual event doesn't become any worse. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support alt Notable, now declared a terrorist incident, article in decent shape.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Terrorism need not have a high death count in order to be notable and newsworthy; we have posted terrorist incidents on ITN that have had a death toll of zero.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it very interesting how many of those who support this nomination refused to publish the terrorist attack in Auckland in September, whose consequences were almost the same as in this case. Any clarification? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "refused to publish"? They didn't !vote there. Apart from Modest Genius, who is opposed here also? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer because clearly I've realized that I have not expressed myself well. I mean that at the time, the reason why I've opposed was the same used by other users (who have not participated in this debate, except Modest Genius) to not support the cited nomination in September. That is why I am frankly surprised. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * BLP Caution One suspect is dead, but four others are arrested in connection; might want to attribute this "attempted terrorist bombing" instead of stating it as a fact Wikipedia knows (a "declaration" from police is still an allegation). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Counter Terrorism Police Caution: all four have been released: . Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, nevermind then. Can't go wrong speaking ill of the dead. At least by Wikipedian norms. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to get personal, if you don't mind. Norman Butkiss 123 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I will admit to perhaps being more jaded to bomb stories than some other nationalities may be, but even with that notwithstanding, I don't believe we'd be considering an attack which killed no victims and injured one if it took place elsewhere (we recently didn't post, for example, an attack that targeted but didn't kill a head of state). That isn't necessarily to say there's any deliberate bias here but it's important to remember that England has a well-developed media sphere and any regional story will have a lot of domestic coverage, but we are not necessarily beholden to repeat their biases. For reference, even the BBC have displaced this story in favour of the latest update in a racism dispute in county cricket. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support major incident, leading news story, article decent. Polyamorph (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (Alt 2). UK terror threat level raised from substantial to severe pushes it over the edge. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As suicide in Britain goes, it was unusually public and explosive, but lacks too much death and destruction next to the general public suicide bombings (a similar story from Strathroy-Caradoc isn't even an article, for context). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- it's already stopped being news, it seems. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Questionable significance since nothing major [fortunately] did not take place. Gotitbro (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the investigation has not been completed and it has not been confirmed yet whether it was terrorism, whether the detonation was intentional or accidental, or who the intended victim or victims might to have been. The current article contains too much opinion, innuendo, and speculation portrayed as fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means mark any "opinion, innuendo, and speculation portrayed as fact" and/or take to the talk page. Opinion is generally permitted if it's clearly attributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose Per WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we are NOT supposed to be a dangerous free publicity machine for every murderous suicidal nutter, still less for every would-be terrorist and every terrorist organisation. So a terrorist incident should be truly exceptional and notable before appearing on our front page, all the more so as it is often liable to remain there giving dangerous free publicity (and thus in practice encouragement) to terrorists and other murderous nutters long after it has disappeared from the front pages of other mainstream Western news outlets (as many terrorists probably already realize, even if many editors around here seemingly don't). There is NOTHING in this incident that gives it the required exceptionality and notability to justify the danger this poses to innocent people, as well as the damage it might (rightly in my view) do to our reputation. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Your diatribe is interesting, but nothing to do with ITNC, otherwise we'd never publish another mass shooting in the US ever again.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose No lasting effect plus terrible disjointed article means it's a No from me, Bob. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The story stopped trending yesterday, and the death/injury toll is very low (luckily). If attacks of this kind were rare in the UK I would be willing to overlook these factors, but (unfortunately) there's been a seemingly-steady uptick in the last couple of years, so there's nothing about this that makes it stand out. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But the satellite blow-up stopped trending 36 hours ago and no-one died. Terror attacks where bombs are ignited on Remembrance Day are few and far between, I'm sure you can point me to the last time that happened, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referencing upticks in UK-based terror attacks in general, not ones falling on Rememberance Day. If terror attacks that fell on special occasions were automatic shoe-ins, then last year's Christmas bombing in Nashville would have been posted, but it wasn't for the same reasons I'm opposing posting this story. For the Russian satellite, take it up with the people for voted for it because I had no involvement in that decision. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, terror attacks often happen on supposedly significant days or dates (sometimes perhaps coincidentally, sometimes perhaps as part of an attempt to increase the attack's psychological impact, or perhaps sometimes for quasi-religious reasons). Not only do we not use this as an excuse to put it into ITN, we sometimes leave it out of the article as well. For instance it was 5 years before Wikipedia mentioned that the Bataclan attacks occurred on Friday the 13th and there is still no link from it to the article about the superstition, presumably because RS don't mention such a link (perhaps to avoid making vulnerable people more fearful or otherwise psychologically distressed or harmed whenever 'significant' dates approach). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment we don't need to name the perp in any of the blurbs. That's totally undue.  Get a grip people. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and removed the name of the perp. We don't need that, even if this isn't posted, anywhere near this encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The name of the perpetrator is encyclopedic and should be in the article; but I agree that it should not be posted in ITN regardless. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose No victims and unclear / unorganised motive. Belugsump (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Limited significance. No longer in the news. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Better suited to DYK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

T20 World Cup

 * Comment the table in "Road to the final" section is ugly- couldn't this just be done in a paragraph of text, as in 2016 article? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's also not compliant with MOS:ACCESS since it contains nested tables. This should be fixed before it's posted on the main page. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:DTAB is a laudable goal, but not one of the WP:ITNCRIT. It's probably moot though, as no improvements to the article have been made in the last 3 days. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While articles on topics such as sporting events and economics lend themselves to tables of numbers, updates must be at least in part written in prose to qualify for ITN consideration. That isn't the case here, as the section in question is using ugly nested tables rather than prose (like I suggested doing days ago). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Etel Adnan

 * Oppose A number of cite tags need to be fixed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be easy to simply delete the handful of unreferenced claims that are already {cn}-tagged, but much work is needed to put in the missing sources for her writing and exhibits. --PFHLai (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bertie Auld

 * Comment Missing citations added now, should be ok JW 1961 Talk 08:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ref 10 (FitbaStats) is a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's not listed at Deprecated Sources or Perennial Sources, neither does Cite Highlighter mark it red and so I would assume it's ok (I'm of course open to correction) JW 1961 Talk 14:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update Reference the fitbastats ref (as of now number 16) and which references his overall Celtic honours - I have supplemented this with individual cites for the trophies/competitions so it is now really redundant JW 1961 Talk 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Indigo Partners orders 255 Airbus A321 jets

 * Comment Good for Airbus, but what makes this an ITN story? --Tone 17:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest snow close. This is barely even 'news' 2405:201:4013:815B:A828:E291:B9B5:4B09 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose one of the less ITN-worthy nominations of this nominator. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Below the radar. – Sca (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Newsworthiness aside, a single-sentence update to a stub won't be enough for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Bullins

 * I think it's basically ready. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fully sourced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Joanna Semel Rose

 * Please add more references. A few paragraphs have no footnotes at all! BTW, please be reminded to nominate this new article for DYK while it is still young enough to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Petra Mayer

 * This stubby wikibio is 1482 characters long. Any more to add? --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1491 characters is too short to be on the front page. Surely there's more that can be said about her? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dubious This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The intro says she was noted for her involvement in Comin-Con and the "Book Concierge". One would expect a paragraph or so about these things in the Career section, but they are currently missing. --PFHLai (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Huff

 * Support Article is in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Wilbur Smith

 * Support – Very widely covered. Comprehensive article looks good. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Well-documented novelist. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am concerned about the sourcing. Lots of references to "wilbursmithbooks.com", lots of references to his autobio On Leopard Rock without corresponding secondary sources, tons of references to other books he's written. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see as many cites to the website (now?) but I do agree that his writing career section is a bit too heavily reliant on his autobio. It is reasonable for a writer like Smith to use his autobio to fill in gaps from other reliable sourcing, but it shouldn't be as heavily used for the "First Novels" section, for example. --M asem (t) 22:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This wikibio has about 20 {cn} tags. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Glasgow Climate Pact

 * Comment Glasgow Climate Pact obviously isn't remotely close to being front-page quality, and 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference doesn't say what happened either. Once this is updated, I will probably support on importance. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's at least enough article to vote. Article still has issues; the "Pledges" section is describing things agreed at the conference that don't appear to be specifically part of the "Glasgow Climate Pact", and the link to Wikisource isn't broken.  As far as importance ... we posted the conference once, and the biggest news is that there are plans to decrease coal usage ... this isn't worth posting again. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 01:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle ... pending updating and succinct revision of 2021 climate conference article. It would be very odd not to blurb this universally covered confab, now over. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That we already posted the COP26 earlier, and that the general impression of the Glasgow Pact that I get from sources is that it is far less as a milestone compared to the Paris Agreements (since it basically affirms commitment to them) makes me wonder if this is really that significant to post a second time. --M asem (t) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Au contraire. Despite disappointments, 'world leaders' said to "broadly welcome" the climate deal, which "for the first time targeted fossil fuels." At least they did something. Prominently covered by every major RS site. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That sentence wasn't over. First time targeting fossil fuels "as the key driver of global warming". Whatever that means. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Resistance is futile. "In asking nations to set tougher targets by next year for cutting climate-warming emissions, the agreement effectively acknowledged that commitments were still inadequate. National pledges currently have the world on track for about 2.4C of warming." The article quality outlook is also dire. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not here to judge the work of the conferees. We're here to take note a very heavily covered, extended international conference that was widely and prominently covered. Do I think the so-called climate pact will solve global warming? No (although it might be a move in the right direction). What you or I think of it doesn't matter. What matters is, it was/is very much in the news, and the topic is hugely significant. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The work of the conferees is the topic. If the news reports the commitments made therein as inadequate, it's not hugely significant in the broader and more newsworthy topic area of global warming prevention. This running conference is just in the news because it was long expected to end today somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Even if they had done nothing it would be significant for reasons outlined above. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we hadn't posted the COP26 thing earlier, I would have been fine with posting this as an ending point as generally the overall conference was in the news. But given that we already did and this new piece is not a major piece of environmental commitment compared to the Paris Agreement, double posting this is just not appropriate. --M asem (t) 22:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is short and unsourced in places. Also, given the Paris Agreement exists, it seems the impact of this is minimal (limited only to reducing coal). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; it's unusual for 197 countries to agree to any single document, even if largely a statement of principles or desires. But agree it is not yet suitable for posting. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that not all 190-some signing countries are committed to the same parts of the document: for example, only 40+ are on board with coal reduction. Hence why this is far less impactful as the Paris Agreements. --M asem (t) 13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb in principle, oppose on quality. The pact is a bit of a damp squib, far less ambitious than expected or required. However we're not here to judge the outcome, just whether it meets the ITN criteria. This is certainly in the news, at or near the top of every quality media outlet. However the pact article is barely a start class and needs some major TLC before being postable. I considered bolding the COP26 article again, but its 'outcomes' section is in even worse state. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Conspicuous omission from ITN blurb box. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As several users have noted, there are quality issues preventing posting. If you want to see it posted, you are welcome to fix those issues. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense? The article is not good enough for front page quality (as ITN isn't OTD, which likes to post poorly sourced articles), and there's no consensus to post it anyway, as they don't seem to have all agreed anything (as different countries signed different agreements). If you want news pushed out as fast as possible, use a news website. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "likes"? Oh, come on. Be nice to our colleagues and neighbours on MainPage. They are rather understaffed there in SA/OTD. It's more like "less than ideal stuff sneaking through too often". But I'm off-topic... --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - given that we already posted the COP26 once, and the headline agreement doesn't appear to be a huge step forward, I don't see a need to post it again. Maybe next time we can hold off posting the opening of such events so that we can capture a one-time interesting headline for readers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Belarus–EU border crisis

 * Support - Definitely for Ongoing. Escalating situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Major story, prominently covered for many days. We shouldn't continue ignoring it. Probably May be worth a blurb if something decisive happens. Support Ongoing for now. – Sca (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing it is an ongoing news story, and contrary to other people, there's no rule that it has to be on blurb before ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Deserved to be in the ongoing section. Major news story as mentioned above and article is more than ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support prominent enough (and updating frequently enough) to justify ongoing. I don't see a potential blurb.  The article is not perfect, but it is good enough. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing crisis and definitely receiving major coverage. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, lots of coverage JW 1961 Talk 23:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Appears to be a strong consensus for Ongoing. Suggest post there now. – Sca (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose ongoing. It needs a blurb first. It's a headline story in the news this week, so propose one. Then we'll consider ongoing afterwards. How many times do we have to go through this? It's getting ridiculous now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Link to the policy page that supports your statement, please? WP:ITN says Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. suggests this nomination is just fine, procedurally. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 23:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, forget it then, I guess you're right in this instance there isn't a very succinct headline. Oppose Struck. I'll post it for you in a second. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I originally thought this was a joke and that this was a user, but then I realized that this is unironically stated by an admin. Wow. Wikipedia can be strange sometimes. --180.244.175.172 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside your snide comments here, there's no joke I'm afraid. I, along with others, consistently oppose attempts to post stories in Ongoing without giving them a blurb first, because most of the time it's lazy, unnecessary and does a disservice to readers who deserve to be told the reason why a story's important. I made an exception here because it's a rare occasion where there's a big constantly-updated story that doesn't really have one catch-all blurb available. Most of the time we should be blurbing before we put things into Ongoing, that's just common sense given that the stories are big enough to make the news. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly who are these "others"? And if you think that's the correct thing to do, you and your others could just discuss this to the talk page in order to stop the unnecessary ranting every time someone attempted to get a topic straight to Ongoing. As some users have pointed out (力 above, 331dot, and Indefensible), what you say isn't written anywhere, so it could confuse people. Have a great day. --180.244.175.150 (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The way the guidelines are written would seem to suggest that the opposite of your position is true(Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. ). If people want to know why something is important, they will read the article. If you would like to work to amend the guidelines to require a blurb first, please start such a discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you know as well as I do that the guidelines are mostly ignored in ITN discussions, in favour of precedent and unwritten custom. According to our "purpose", we are supposed to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" - something we blatantly don't do, because instead we evaluate the significance of everything at ITN/C, under the mantra that we're "not a newsticker". I used to argue the opposite, but at some point you accept the status quo. The same goes here. While the guidelines may suggest that something can go straight to Ongoing, in practice that rarely happens. We blurb stories first and then drop it to Ongoing later, that's simply the way it's always worked. It'd be fantastic if we had a set of proper guidelines that we could follow in all cases, but it would need a bit change in the way the discussions on this page work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Throughout my history here I have always worked for the posting of items that I think are in the news and likely to be searched for. This is not 331dot's In The News, it is a community project, and I accept the consensus of what happens here(that's not a criticism of you, but a statement about me.) I do not claim that blurb-ongoing doesn't or shouldn't happen, only that the guidelines do not preclude (and actually encourage) straight-to-Ongoing posting. I would support clarifying that both are possible if there is consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that most (but not all) of the time, stories should be blurbs before ongoing. If we need to discuss more, perhaps this should move to the talk page. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are many similar migrant/refugee issues elsewhere. For example, Record high migrant detentions at US-Mexico border; Record number of people cross Channel to UK in small boats; Ocean Viking: Nine-day standoff ends as migrant ship allowed to dock in Sicily; Iran deporting thousands of Afghan refugees.  These seem endemic as there's a continuous pressure to move from poor and failed states to more stable and successful ones.  It's not clear why this particular border should get attention and how it will stop being an ongoing issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that this is not receiving news coverage right now?(a genuine question) This is an example of refugees being used as a weapon, as the Belarus dictator has openly said he would do. There does not need to be a clear end date for something in order to post it to Ongoing; its removal can be proposed if it drops out of the news. If you feel other such events should be posted, please nominate them, we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of these hotspots are in the news both now and as ongoing for years. To single one out for special attention, there needs to be some special incident and that is best done as a blurb.  As an ongoing entry, the linked article should be something more general such as European migrant crisis or List of largest refugee crises.  Note that the latter has four entries which extend to the present day. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose ongoing, support blurb This seems to be a recent escalation for an ongoing border issue, for which a blurb makes sense IMO. If it's still ongoing by the time it rolls off the template, then it would be fine for ongoing. I know a blurb isn't a specific requirement for items to be added to the ongoing section, but given the inertia common to the ongoing section and the vague timelines that accompany these items (the majority of the time they are removed following lack of regular update for 1-2 weeks), I think encouraging blurbs with roll-over to ongoing should be preferred, and for this item I think makes a lot of sense.  Spencer T• C 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you make a suggestion for a blurb. Otherwise we are discussing something that does not exist.BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Fifty-some migrants break through into Polish territory, reportedly aided by Belorussian border guards.   (in German) – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: EU parliamentarians denounce Lukashenko regime's "attacks" on EU/Polish border. – Sca (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – EU FMs unanimously agree on new sanctions against Belarus.     – Sca (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – According to DW's English-language newscast Wednesday, Lukashenko has essentially backed down, partly as a result of successive phone calls from Merkel. The game is up ... apparently. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh Leatherman

 * Support Looks good to me. By the way, it was 40 years, not 30. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Flowers

 * Support I replaced the citation needed tags with references, looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Cristiana Lôbo

 * This wikibio is long enough and has footnotes in expected spots. I have to AGF all the non-English refs. The bare URLs in refs need to be dressed, though. Otherwise, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Needs copyediting.  Spencer T• C 04:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Art Stewart

 * Long enough and with footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Ying-yuan

 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phyllis Webb

 * Long enough and with footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Graeme Edge
Support Good to go. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment a couple of referenced pieces in here, and a few CN tags as well. Fix those up and you'll be good to go
 * Please add more references. The orange tags and the {cn} tags asking for more references ought to be addressed before this nom can proceed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aga Mikolaj

 * Support Well-referenced. Nicely done article. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Winter (dolphin)

 * Support article looks good enough for RD. And animals with an individual article are eligible for RD. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Would be unique to post an animal RD. Heythereimaguy (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had several dogs, cats, horses, and even a tree ;) But, all good here (I removed an unreferenced non-essential sentence), posting. --Tone 16:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How about Doug, the world's biggest potato, recently exhumed in NZ? – Sca (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Lundin Energy war crimes indictment

 * Oppose Indicted is not the same as convicted, which is our usually ITN metric. Additionally, this would definitely require more than a single sentence update. --M asem (t) 01:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, they haven't been convicted. If convicted then maybe then it would be ITN-worthy, but completely inappropriate to post allegations to ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from most RS sites, not generally in the news. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any mere indictment. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Maracle

 * Support meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) RD: F. W. de Klerk

 * A blurb candidate? --PFHLai (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an argument for a blurb can be made, that he was a "major figure". 331dot (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A blurb seems appropriate, a historically important and influential national leader. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is blurb-level in significance. --LukeSurlt c 11:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Clearly a candidate for blurb. The article doesn’t appear to be in bad shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Transformative leader for South Africa. Even though not all of his views and actions should be glorified, his role in securing a peaceful transition to democracy is undeniable. It wasn't just for symbolism that he got to share the Nobel with Nelson Mandela. Davey2116 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support he's not Mandela (which seems to be used a lot to oppose blurb postings), but he is still an important figure in moving South Africa to democracy/ending apartheid. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb While early talks began with Botha, the bulk of the negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid regime was through talks between Klerk and Mandela. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I would prefer altblurb2 Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - prominent SA politician for a long time. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Davey2116's and Scaramouche33's comments. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blub The man who ended apartheid and made it sure that those who use the Mandela excuse, Only can because of the brave thing de Klerk did. Well written article and fully deserves a blurb.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb article in good nick, historically notable individual, good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Transformative. Favor alt1, offered above. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we need to point out that he was white, especially if a picture is provided? We did not post that Mandela was black, but that he was an anti-apartheid leader. I think mentioning apartheid is more beneficial to readers than just the appearance/race. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most RS coverage refers to him as the last white president. Since racial apartheid was basically a white-supremacy policy, his race was and is highly relevant. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Also if you don't say 'white' then it may be difficult and/or confusing to avoid awkwardly saying 'apartheid' twice.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We can switch to alt1 if support is demonstrated here. --PFHLai (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (Post-Posting) Support Altblurb (ideally altblurb2, but altblurb1 is also OK by me). (Support modified as I've now added Altblurb2, detailed explanation to follow below shortly) I was about to propose an altblurb myself before the current altblurb got suggested, and before the blurb got posted, but ran into edit conflict twice, and I see the proposed altblurb is probably a lot more concise than I could have managed. Our blurb should say as concisely as possible something like that he negotiated the end of apartheid with Mandela (concision may or may not require omitting explicit mention of Mandela, as in the current altblurb). After all, that's why he's really notable and worth a blurb. And if we don't say it explicitly (and our posted blurb doesn't) it arguably makes us look a bit racist to the uninformed, on the basis of 'Why would an Apartheid President deserve a blurb?'. I may or may not try to add one or more other altblurbs shortly, simply to mention Mandela, but I suspect other editors may do a better (more concise) job there than me, as I'm usually not very good at concision. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But we're impressed with your use of the word "concision." – Sca (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC) ;-)
 * And presumably you're even more impressed with the lack of concision in my use of the word "concision." – Tlhslobus (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, appropriately, it was your last word (the 175th). – Sca (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Not disagreeing on a stronger altblurb, but I would suggest stronger language as he not only backed the end, but (from our article) seemed to actively support steps in dismantling apartheid and making South Africa democratic (obviously he didn't do it alone). Just saying he backed the end seems to be an undercut statement to that point. --M asem (t) 13:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I used "backed" as a slightly shorter version of "supported" (ex-jnlst that I am). – Sca (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now added altblurb2, and amended my support to support it as my preferred altblurb, tho altblurb1 is also OK by me. The advantages of altblurb2 (compared to altblurb1) is that it avoids mentioning 'white', avoids saying 'apartheid' twice, mentions Mandela, and is stronger and more precise than merely 'backed', while still being only slightly longer than altblurb1. (I've already mentioned above the advantages of either altblurb compared to our current posted blurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Altblurb2 just got a little longer as I've added '(pictured)' to show its expected true length).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deitalicized the situation somewhat. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support altb-2 Better and more holistic than the current blurb, simply stating apartheid doesn't cut it for the average reader. Gotitbro (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Let us not forget that we should not put the blurbs so long if it's not an essential requirement (in this case we would go up to, possibly, six lines in Main Page). In the same way that we should not forget that in most cases we do not specify so much the reason why that person is remarkable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus for Alt2 has emerged, blurb updated. Stephen 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb support I support the current blurb posted. Is there a way to include his Nobel Prize win. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be done in several ways. Shortest is perhaps "Nobel-Prize-winning former ...". Alternatively "..., who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela for ending apartheid, ...". But I'm neutral on whether it would be a good idea, for several reasons. On the plus side it's fairly important info. On the minus side, it lengthens the blurb. And I had to omit the date to avoid confusion (the prize was 1993, apartheid ended in 1994). And some might argue that it's unnecessary/unbalanced gilding of the lily, and some might want to balance it with a word such as "controversial" (because of his actual or alleged role/responsibility in some of the worst crimes of apartheid, a seemingly still ongoing debate in today's South Africa). Personally I prefer not to risk getting further involved in such an argument. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed)(Re-posted) Crew-3 launch

 * Support And you know right. I can’t see any issue in the article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose To post this when we recently denied Captain Kirk would be partisan boosterism. This just seems to be a routine journey without any special newsworthiness. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, this one actually went into space space. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This wasn't exactly going boldly as the ISS is only 250 miles up – I drove further than that myself yesterday. The main point that the NYT article makes is that this is now over 600 people in space (and they include the Shatner launch in this too).  At some point this is routine, rather than special news.  Shatner got attention on account of his remarkable age and his celebrity but this launch doesn't have so much going for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, only crewed missions that go into orbit are considered ITN/R whereas the Blue Origin mission was suborbital. Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR so this opposition can be overlooked. We're here to assess the quality of the article only.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ITNR items do allow to discuss if the specific instance may not be as notable as other elements in broad category (via IAR), though we should not be using ITNC to argue about inclusion of the broad category. (To that end, I have opened a thread at WT:ITN related to removing this ITNR item) --M asem (t) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment although space flights are listed on ITN/R, there no actual link to a discussion on there (whereas almost every other ITN/R item has actually had a discussion). Did people actually ever agree that they should all be ITN/R? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a proposal to establish whether there is still a consensus for these at ITNR. This particular venue is not the appropriate place as the item in question currently is ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a direct question about the validity of the ITN/R process to put it on ITNR. Unless someone points to an actual discussion/consensus for space flights being ITN/R, it shouldn't be considered so. That somebody seems to have unilaterally added it many years ago is not a reason to call it ITN/R. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, to question the validity of something listed at ITNR, start a thread at WT:ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone specifically suggested excluding routine ISS crew rotations over 10 years ago. The discussion just seemed to fizzle out without a conclusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At another similar discussion, someone else said, "As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it ...". That discussion wasn't formally closed either and so the ITN/R entry represents a unilateral bold update rather than some considered consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I specifically raised this and proposed modification a year ago after Crew 1. It's no good people complaining when something is nominated in WP:ITNC when they don't say anything when it's raised at the appropriate venue. -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * KTC made a good point at ITN/R but there was low attendance at the discussion and no formal close. It seems clear that ITN/R lacks the participation required to establish a solid consensus.  ITN/C is the place that gets the attendance because it's linked on the main page.  It's therefore ITN/C that should drive the outcomes. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose routine event, and claim of ITN/R is not correct, as the ITN/R for space flights seems to have been added without consensus to do so. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, lots of information in the infobox is not sourced anywhere in the article, and there's an over-reliance on tweets, which are primary sources. And the "Mission" section doesn't actually explain what their mission is (for what reason are they just going up to the ISS)? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that the toilet has been fixed, so no diapers were needed this time. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Shucks, that was what made the last one interesting. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose there's no news here, just NASA PR cruft. Should be removed from ITNR. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support One sentence missing a ref, otherwise its fine. The above opposes are invalid because as of the nomination this is ITNR, full stop. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as ITN/R Manned spaceflight, article is fine. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This event also brings the amount of people ever been to space to above 600, however this is also similar to the denied Captain Kirk proposed story. Rafaelmanman (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, 600. What an unimportant number. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Without it, there'd be absolutely no way from 599 to 601! But yeah, in space travel context, not at all significant. Just something to beef up the lead section, I assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Routine, unexciting launch. IAR. -- Kicking222 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually don't disagree that this is routine, and have proposed excluding such launches from ITNR(but not total removal)- but there is no consensus to do so yet and I don't see a benefit to the encyclopedia in ignoring this "rule". 331dot (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go, article quality sufficient for this ITNR item. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready on quality almost all the infobox information is not sourced in the article- if not sourced in the infobox, it should be added somewhere in the body of the text with sources. This includes all the "Spacecraft properties" information, "End of mission" proposed dates, "Undocking" dates. And using way too many tweets as primary sources instead of actual reliable sources. Good that everyone has ignored these article quality abominations.... <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Easily the least interesting of recent shuttle stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: on one hand, this is (currently) on ITNR and the article is in reasonable shape - the orange tags seem overkill to me. On the other hand, it's a routine crew rotation, I've been arguing those shouldn't be on ITNR for a decade, and the current discussion on WT:ITN seems to have general agreement that ITNR shouldn't cover this sort of flight, even if it doesn't agree on exactly what the new wording should be. I encourage further participation in that discussion. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting The result of the discussion so far is that the article quality is sufficient and the item is on ITNR.  Some editors disagree with the ITNR criteria, which seems like a reasonable position to consider.  However, the decision whether to post this ITN item is not sufficiently important to invoke IAR.  Those who think ITNR should be altered are invited to go make that change.  Until it happens, this item should be posted.  Maybe it will be the last routine posting of human orbital flights, or maybe not.  Feel free to continue the discussion.  Consensus may change. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now on hold for quality because one editor insists on restoring the orange warning template. I suggest editors who want this posted go address the concerns about infobox information needing citations.  This should be easy and quick to fix, and then it can be posted. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? You've clearly ignored all the unsourced text in the infobox, this fails the article quality threshold. I see you removed the valid tags, ignored this quality discussion and the one on the article talkpage, and want to post this anyway. Try fixing all the cn tags before posting, rather than just removing tags. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I raised the quality concerns 22 hours ago, and nobody has even touched them, so don't imagine it'll be fixed anytime soon. Infobox seems like a whole load of WP:SPECULATION to me. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find any info on the launch and landing mass, but no luck so far. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * When the sourced content is crap trivia (or more politely, "NASA PR") like The first astronauts of this NASA Astronaut Group 22 (nicknamed The Turtles) to fly to space, Raja Chari and Kayla Barron on SpaceX Crew-3 took a stuffed turtle as zero-g indicator, to pay a tribute to their astronaut group. Additionally, to include the other crew members on board, Matthias Maurer and Tom Marshburn, the turtle was named "Pfau", a German word meaning "Peacock" for Matthias Maurer who is German, and for Tom Marshburn who was part of NASA Astronaut Group 19 (nicknamed The Peacock). I didn't even bother checking for non-sourced content. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 17:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can improve the article, please do. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't improve it. It is fully sourced and contains all the important information about the event.  The problem is that there is so little important information to cover that the article also has to include unimportant information to not be a stub. Also, I agree that per policy this should be posted; it's not worth being brave to early-close the talk page discussion to remove this from ITNR immediately. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said of ITNR before, it should be that any discussion about the rational for posting the broad categories of events should not be debated at ITNC on the basis there was consensus for the ITNR, but individual ITNR noms can be deemed to be so insignificant as exceptions from the category (as this appears to have qualified) as a type of IAR to the ITNR approach. This is of course in addition to the article quality aspects. ITNR is not a blood pact that we have to post every thing that fits. EG: about a year ago there was that Martian (?) sample collector that was first nom'd when it arrived in orbit (which was ITRN) but we decided to wait until news of the sample collection (the first of its sort) as the more notable event. That's the type of logic that should be behind judging ITNR. --M asem  (t) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The missing citations were fixed. Two uncited facts remained, and I just removed them because if we can't find a source after a full day of looking, that calls those facts into question.  I will repost this in a moment.  Feel free to continue discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Comment – It's now the least interesting blurb in the box. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Now would be a good time to recommend changing the ITNR criteria for human space flight. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose more people being sent to space for little reason, aside from routine? Why is this “news”? 2A01:4C8:481:753A:912B:C8B8:F206:CFDF (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. Routine enough event that it'd never have been approved if it wasn't spaceflight-related. This is systemic bias at work., please reevaluate your determination of consensus here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still ITNR, so all Jehochman has to do is assess article quality, as you well know having just voted on the proposal to remove spaceflight entirely from ITNR. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pull - Consensus on ITNR is trending heavily against news items of this sort. The right thing to do would be to remove this from ITN.--WaltCip- (talk)  21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, you can't retrospectively apply a trend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where there's a will.... – Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as churlish and petty now it's been there a few days. And after all, no actual readers have complained about its presence, just some who are lawyering around the edges of the process.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA – Sca (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, you know the P stands for "personal", right? Oh dear. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Churlish and petty are words characterizing personal acts or traits, are they not?. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any pulling. The discussion on ITN/R about future postings should have no bearing on this one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling. This was validly posted and should be left alone.  If the next one is not under ITNR, fair enough(though I disagree with its total removal) but this one that was validly posted does not need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support pulling nobody demonstrated this was important enough for ITN, they just used "it's ITNR" as justification. And the discussion has disproved that justification, as consensus is that it's not important. It was a nomination predicated on an untrue assertion. I would support doing the pull as a replacement when the next ITN blurb is added, so we don't have too little content on ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not change that it was a valid posting when it was made. I don't think we should retroactively change policies. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Walter Gratzer

 * With less than 1000 characters of prose, this is too short at this time. Please expand. --PFHLai (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Cleland

 * Oppose for now. Too much unreferenced material.  Needs many cites.  Fix that and this can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've addressed most of the citation needed tags. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Most unreferenced material appears to have been addressed, and the article is done very well. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pedro Feliciano

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced.  Spencer T• C 06:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment On RD listing order: Feliciano's death is before Cleland's? CoatCheck (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the order of articles getting ready and getting admin attention. Some wikibios take a few days to get ready, some merely hours... --PFHLai (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @: since December 2020, RDs are no longer posted based on date of death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Understood, thank you! CoatCheck (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahlagha Mallah

 * Weak support there are a lot of gaps in her biography, skipping over entire decades, but everything that is there is well referenced. I'd prefer if it were more comprehensive, but I won't stand in the way if others think this is worth posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, well referenced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. A bit thin but not bad enough to disqualify for RD. Years of grassroot activism probably lacked publicity; even if there was, it would unlikely be online in English -- hard to find. --PFHLai (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdul Wahab Dalimunthe

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements, assuming the refs are good. Is Abdul his first or last name? Might need to switch that around in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support Reads more like a CV rather than a biography. Much of the article is just a listing of jobs that he held, without much on what he did while in those positions.  It's not awful, so I won't hold it up from posting, but it could benefit from some expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, well referenced. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Per Jayron. Politician articles on ITN should have more depth than a list of positions; maybe 1-2 sentences in 2-3 paragraphs and this would be a fine article.  Spencer T• C 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. It's indeed a bit thin, but not bad enough to disqualify for RD. It's a start class article, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seán FitzPatrick

 * Comment Resignation section is missing a few refs and needs cleanup to remove a bit of minor sensationalist wording. Article also has unnecessary quote formatting. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A few citations are still missing (and still {cn} tagged). Please add more references. --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC) New refs have been inserted to replace some of the {cn} tags. The remaining unreferenced statements have been removed. It may be time to re-review this RD candidate. --PFHLai (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD  Spencer T• C 13:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Dean Stockwell

 * Oppose for now. There's at least one uncited section, and there are sporadic places where additional cites would help.  Furthermore, the article is basically a prose filmography, "In 1999, he appeared in the films X, Y, and Z.  In 2000, he appeared in an episode of the TV show yada yada" and there's little else there.  It could probably use for a bit of an overhaul to improve narrative flow.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 NASCAR Cup Series

 * Support article looks fine, good season summary with high level detail of races. Doesn't seem to be a reason why this shouldn't run (even if it means having two American sports events on ITN at the same time ;) ). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support As noted above, the prose synopsis of the season is good (it's what keeps a lot of these sorts of sports articles from being posted), and I can so no major gaps. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Big article, well referenced, a lot of proseline but that's hard to avoid. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we do this for other categories of racing too (eg f1, sbk)? 10:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)41.58.49.200 (talk)
 * WP:ITNR. MotoGP, not SBK. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 NYC Marathon

 * Support article is in very good condition. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The racers are not required to be bolded, but: Jepchirchir's would only need sourcing of the races (some which just can duplicate the existing ones in the article). Korir needs more bio details, it is rather short. Again, not required but it would be nice if both could be improved before posting. --M asem (t) 19:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this suggested/required for non bold links in other ITN nominations, so not sure why it's a necessity to this nomination. Both articles have this result listed and having them on front page is a good opportunity to encourage people to improve those articles. Rather than trying to demand they're improved before being linked on this ITN nomination. Neither articles has critical issues, so perfectly fine to link to them as is. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not demanding it, but it would be nice to see the winners also highlighted if they could be improved quickly, hence why I explained how far away they were from being there. --M asem (t) 20:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, bolded article is well referenced and unbolded articles are acceptable. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Nicaraguan general election

 * Support. Election is, to say the least, dubious, but we posted the Russian one and stare decisis and all that This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Show election or not, this falls within the scope of ITNR and article's quality is the only thing which matters.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article itself looks solid --Vacant0 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop the presses. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – The article is well referenced and does a good job of explaining the background and not just the election itself. The results are, um, unsurprising. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Show elections are still elections and therefore are ITNR. The article is sourced and updated.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 16:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blub 3. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 19:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainstream sources reporting this are putting "sham" qualifiers in article titles and repeating them in the lede. . It is true that we are not here to right wrongs, but in making the choice to omit contextualization that RSs insist on, we are creating a new harm, and it reflects poorly on the project.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Proposed altblurb.
 * Comment I thought we had a discussion on how to report these kinds of "elections" and the consensus was to just report the result in each case? Perhaps I was wrong.  But if this is the first time we post a blurb with an opinion on the conduct, then we'll need to do that each and every time hereafter, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say we should omit it, simply as while most other international observers do state the election is a sham, others (like Russia, so yeah, not the best authority) say it wasn't. ITN shouldn't be getting that far into fresh disputes, so just reporting the results at ITN, and letting the article get into the context of why it was considered a sham. --M asem (t) 20:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NOM. COMMENT Someone has decided to put the orange tag on the article because of a supposed "lack of neutrality" and messed it up with their "good faith" edits. Since it's orange tagged, it shouldn't be on the Main Page, so could you take a look at it and see if, even removing the tag, it's still OK? I have my doubts. Thanks. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Attempted assassination of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi

 * Oppose We don't usually post assassination attempts, don't see anything standing out here either. That article is also unwarranted, most of the material can be listed on Kadhimi's article itself. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose only successful assassinations are posted as far as I know.Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the previous two comments cover it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No nobel prize for attempted chemistry. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was so short that I redirected it to Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, where the incident is already mentioned. I suggest closing. --Tone 11:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maureen Cleave

 * This stubby wikibio has only 1483 characters of prose. Any more to add? --PFHLai (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more re. her early and personal life, as well as the start of her career. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bloom. This wikibio is now long enough (almost 2500 characters), has footnotes at the expected spots, and thus READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Had a 40 year journalism career, and career section focuses on a small portion of that. Insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Spencer T• C 05:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RD: Shawn Rhoden

 * Oppose competition history appears mainly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs ref improvement as The Rambling Man wrote. - Indefensible (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 1&half; unreferenced sections. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tarak Sinha

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely done article, with many references. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muamer Zukorlić

 * Comment Everything seems to be referenced but do we have any English language sources about the guy? Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just added a couple of English sources, the only ones I've found. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's a support from me. Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article's in very good shape: in-depth coverage of his life, thought and career and fully sourced (even if it's mostly in Serbian). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Freetown fuel tanker explosion

 * Comment Somebody nominated the total mess that is my article? I'm so sorry for the chaos. Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. A tragic, notable accident.  It appears the toll could increase as well. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending development. Horrendous. AP puts toll at 92+ . – Sca (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, that's the number given by the central morgue in Freetown. I updated the blurb. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above. We can updating the death toll as information progressed. 180.254.164.201 (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Very unusual accident with devastating consequences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Is that really an oil tanker (a ship!) or a tank truck? The Reuters pic in the linked BBC News article shows no ship. The caption says, "The burnt remains of the trucks involved in the collision." --PFHLai (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on which variant of English is being used. The BBC calls it an "oil tanker".  I would call an "oil tanker".  But others may not.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * has just moved the wikipage to 2021 Sierra Leone fuel tanker explosion. We probably should craft a new blurb once the dust gets settled. --PFHLai (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit bold, I note that AP also calls it an "oil tanker". Looks like those wishing to change it are in the minority. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * While keeping "oil tanker", we could add "near a urban center" or something in the blurb to imply this was a street accident rather than a water-bourne accident and thus give enough context to be clear in the blurb. --M asem (t) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree on calling it "explosion" rather than "collision", but whether "fuel tanker" is more common than "oil tanker" in RS is a moot point. After all, British English should be preferred for a former British colony which gained independence 60 years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened up a discussion on the proper name for the vehicle on the article's talk page. Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support though would like to see maybe a bit more expansion. This is the rare case of vehicular accidents that have large death tolls that we should post. --M asem (t) 13:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Dantesque. An atypical accident with those numbers of fatalities is blurb-worthy, and by far. And the article is not in bad shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Wow, that's a lot of deaths. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since ITN is read by millions worldwide, including more than 300 million speakers of North American English, I can't support use of "oil tanker" or "fuel tanker" by itself in the blurb, because "tanker" will be understood by a great many readers as referring to a ship (which I at first assumed) rather than a truck a.k.a. lorry. (The sun set on the British Empire's colonies long ago.) Thus, prefer Alt1, offered above. – Sca (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting we write all ITN blurbs in American English from now on? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No – "(lorry)" added to Alt1 above. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have ENGVAR for a reason. And that's not to dilute everything down to the lowest common denominator, i.e. USEng.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're saying U.S. English is the lowest form of English? Let me reiterate that native speakers of English in the U.S. outnumber those in the UK by approximately 5:1. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. Never mind.  USA USA! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * My aim is simply to avoid confusing a sizeable proportion of our audience. → Note PFHLai 's comment above. – Sca (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, your aim is to adopt USEng whenever there is any possible confusion for Americans. I see that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - apt description of the event, clear and per sources. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apt British-English description of the event. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean one which follows the vast majority of sources, local and internationally? I see what you mean. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You just resent the Battle of Yorktown. – Sca (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only yanks who are obsessed with that and the tea party. The UK gives no shits about that at all, you do realise that, right?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But Ramblo, we Yanks revere the Magna Carta and all that stuff! – Sca (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what all this ancient history and flag-shagging is all about with relevance to naming this event correctly.  I'll follow the reliable sources, you stick to diluting things to Amurican. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's about reader comprehension. – Sca (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the ancient history and flag-shagging is about reader comprehension? I see. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been great fun, but I'm behind my Saturday schedule – must do laundry forthwith, then comes the high point of my day: lunch. Au revoir. – Sca (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good answer. So it was of no relevance.  Thanks anyway.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tanked my frustrations in a bacon & melty cheese sandwich on toasted rye. – Sca (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Posting. I'll use fuel tank truck, as in the article intro. --Tone 16:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * no, use "fuel tanker" per the article and per the article intro. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you moved the article as well. Hard to keep the changes so fast. Fixing now, but if there are more article moves, that should be fixed. The current title make sense, though. --Tone 16:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I didn't move the article, that would be another user. It also now needs an "a" in the blurb.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – AP – the world's largest news-gathering organization – leads with: "An oil tanker truck exploded..." – Sca (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, curiously you omit their headline (which is what we're writing here really) which says "Oil tanker explodes in Sierra Leone, killing at least 98". Oops! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bon jour. Ah, but there's an aerial pic. with the story showing it was a vehicle, not a ship. And in journalism, brevity is one of the goals of headline writing. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh well, what's there is perfectly suitable given the reliable sources and local sources reporting on it. Cheers, have a great Sunday! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif

 * Support meets WP:ITNRD and article appears to be in a good shape. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment there's an unreferenced para in there, and I'm not entirely convinced a whole section on this "controversy" is needed, feels undue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. I've removed that section and replaced it with a sentence stating that he was involved in the defence; imo, details about that case do not belong in this wikibio, but the wikibio of the killer and the victim. --PFHLai (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - could use some improvement but seems to meet requirements assuming refs are valid. - Indefensible (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reginald Green (economist)

 * Support - most of the article is supported by 1 obituary, but otherwise seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready. Meets minimum standards; referenced.  Spencer T• C 06:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Meets only the bare minimum, but it is fine. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adolfo J. de Bold

 * Posted Stephen 00:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siluyan

 * Posted Stephen 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Astroworld Festival crowd crush

 * Support, a significant loss of life. The article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It's in the news and sadly there were multiple deaths, article seems OK for start class. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS - my support is conditional on the absence of the loaded word "stampede", which was thankfully removed earlier. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , just out of curiosity, could you explain what you mean? I've always used stampede and crush interchangeably and I'd like to know for future use why that's not correct.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * it's possible this is an English variety difference between the US and the UK, but over here the word "stampede" carries a connotation that people were running uncontrollably, and perhaps irrationally, in response to some fear,and that any deaths that happen are a result of falling down and being trodden underfoot. This sort of thing was particularly relevant in the Hillsborough disaster, in which victims were blamed for many years by the government and the police. Our stampede article seems to summarize the issue in the lead with "Some media sources refer to situations in which people were injured or have died due to compression in very dense crowds as a "stampede", but this is a misnomer; the more appropriate term would be crush, or crowd collapse. " Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, I found another good explanation in the article for the 2015 Mina stampede: Some academics who study crowd movements and crushing disasters have questioned the use of the term "stampede".[29] "The rhetoric of 'stampede' is often used to imply that the crowd is animalistic or mindless, but from a crowd psychology point of view, I'm sure that there was a logical explanation for the crush", University of Sussex crowd behavioral expert Anne Templeton told Newsweek.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Category:Human stampedes in the United States (I apologise for including that dehumanising word in the name of the category) contains only two others in the last 100 years that weren't brought on by fires. Unless there were many others that haven't been covered on Wikipedia yet, this isn't a common occurrence. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to diminish from this specific item being important to post, but it was noted there were a couple deaths two years ago at the same event from a similar situation (crowd pressing forward, though didn't seem to cause the reactive panic, and thus likely not as much of a news event to make standalone). These can happen, but usually we're talking the isolated deaths here and there. This is definitely far different. --M asem (t) 19:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - this type of event is very rare. It should be blurbed. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!]  19:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Added alt blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 20:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly recommend NOT using Scott's picture. He's not to blame here (outside his popularity) and that would be a BLP issue. The image of the venue is fine if an image is needed. --M asem (t) 20:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He is the festival's founder and the crush was during his performance. I personally don't think that including his photo attributes blame / would be a BLP issue, but I can understand where you're coming from. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 20:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having the article linked an image of the place where the drama takes place...who thinks it's a good idea to put a picture of one of the participants? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Scott was a participant in the festival, but not the crush, so an image of him shouldn't be included on ITN. The blurb is about the crush, not the festival. Jim Michael (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The article seems ready and to have enough support...  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Rare event and gaining international coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marília Mendonça

 * Comment - was looking at this article too, seems promising but discography is currently unreferenced though. - Indefensible (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's easy to fix. She was very popular in Brazil. There will be a lot of covering about her career. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 23:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have sourced the discography. The article is still being heavily edited, as expected, since she was very popular in Brazil and her death was a shocker. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 02:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 05:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements, good work updating it. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Fixer88 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems gtg for a mention.  Wylie pedia  @ 09:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lionel Blair

 * Comment Orange tag (2017) and a few CN's need attention before this can be pubblished JW 1961 Talk 22:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, sources added. Could be expanded from extensive BFI catalogue. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Now of adequate quality. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:89DB:B0F4:4A0E:BB0A (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. No ITN credit notice was posted to the nominator, now a banned user. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Tigray War

 * Obvious oppose multiple maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose orange tagged in 3 separate places, needs a lot of improvement before even being considered. Also, hasn't been updated for a couple of days (and many sections, much longer than that), which is a requirement to be/stay on ongoing. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An ongoing nom should begin with a blurb, and then "roll down" into Ongoing if the initial story is still continuing once its time on the main page is over. Also, the article has hefty issues which seem unlikely to be resolved very soon without large effort! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is that stated in the guidelines? 331dot (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with 331dot, the guidelines do not seem to say that starting with a blurb and then rolling down is required. I think requirements are met with this nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, until quality issues noted in the maintenance tags are fixed. After that is done, I'll re-evaluate.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality the article has the potential to go in ongoing, but the orange tags would need to be fixed first. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since today is the one-year anniversary of the Tigray conflict, this might merit a blurb. Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm assuming we will do what we did for the 2021 Taliban offensive. So we'll post a blurb if Addis Ababa is captured by the rebels. Until then, we wait.Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: See "Could Ethiopia's capital fall to Tigrayan and allied forces?" – Sca (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - article seems pretty well sourced overall, the issues tagged do not seem like that big of a deal to me. - Indefensible (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An orange maintenance tag suggesting the article needs to be updated doesn't seem like a big deal for you for an "ongoing" nomination? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, orange banners are just someone's opinion, I would just remove those 2 banners personally with perhaps some minor update, the issues aren't really deal breakers in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just ... indefensible. You do you.  And if you're so convinced, go ahead and do it, don't sit on the fence! Also, I'm not seeing a substantial update since 2 November, am I missing something?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's defensible. For comparison, look at the article for Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) included in the 2021 Japanese general election blurb. There are 2 orange banners on that article similar to this nomination, but for poor referencing which is more serious compared to here where the tagged sections are well sourced. Notice in my nomination for the Japanese election that I actually did not link the article because I did not think it should be on the front page. That article was not bolded or the focus of the blurb, but still was posted despite the issues. Both that article and this would be non-bolded links, so why should that be OK and not this? In my opinion, this article better meets the quality requirements so there should not be a fundamental issue. But I realize this is against the consensus so currently I do not plan to remove the banners and start an edit war personally. - Indefensible (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've demonstrated the contrary, and to reiterate, I'm not seeing a substantial update since 2 November, am I missing something? This is, after all, an "Ongoing" nomination.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the article's history. What is the definition for meeting the ongoing requirements by "regularly updated with new, pertinent information"? Seems up to semantic interpretation, but I would say it meets that. If not, the update provided by Sca below probably has more than enough information to add material to qualify. - Indefensible (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And as per usual, the "it's still in the news" gets called out, but yet nothing is being added to the article. You literally can't support an ongoing nomination that isn't being updated in light of information that you yourself are aware of but which isn't in the article.  That, I'm afraid, is literally indefensible. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That update was provided after my vote, I don't think I need to retroactively withdraw support because of that. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article has been updated well enough to when I voted and is actively being maintained. The recent edits on the article seem enough to be considered under the guidelines, otherwise they really should be defined better. - Indefensible (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre. I can't see a discernible update since 2 November.  You told me that Sca's links provide enough info for an update, but yet that update hasn't happened, yet you support ongoing, ignoring the maintenance tag, even though you actually know this ongoing event's article hasn't been updated?  Enough for me.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 2 issues here: quality and updating. It has been 3 days since the 2nd, where does it say in the requirements that 3 days exceeds qualifying for ongoing? Plus I would say that enough material has been added since then (even just today) for qualification. On quality, how does this article not qualify when the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) article qualified for posting? - Indefensible (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough. I'm sorry to have replied as many times.  You're entitled to your position.  That I find it absurd and indefensible is irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, but maybe you should not find the position "absurd and indefensible" per the unaddressed issues pointed out. - Indefensible (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you're not going to leave it, was Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) the target article at Ongoing? Was it the target article in the blurb?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but what difference is there when both are non-bolded links? Where does it say there is a difference in the requirements? - Indefensible (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What?? We vote on the target article, not other articles included in the blurb.  Whatever are you talking about?  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So we don't care about the quality of an article so long as it's non-target, is what you're saying? We can have trash on the front page as long as it's not bolded seems to be the takeaway. - Indefensible (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm saying that the ITN process calls for quality assessment of its target articles and generally ignores the quality of other linked articles. Yes, that's correct.  But in this case of an ongoing article, we look for regular quality  updates, and this has been tagged with an "update needed" tag with which you agree based on Sca's examples below yet which aren't in the actual article.  (Have you ever clicked on any non-bold link anywhere on the main page????!!!!)  It's all extremely odd.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the nom again, you have to admit the referencing is good, right? The banners are not about poor quality of referencing. The 1st banner is the war crimes section. There is a dedicated article (War crimes in the Tigray War) that again seems to have good referencing and goes into more detail. Why do we need to expand the section on the main article when there is a dedicated link for it? That is not a quality issue, it's a verbosity issue.
 * For the 2nd banner on humanitarian crisis, again the referencing is not poor quality but rather is asking for new updates. But what updates are there to write, isn't that WP:CRYSTAL? If that is the available information, then it should be enough but calling it a quality issue seems inaccurate. - Indefensible (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody appears to be questioning the references,  why  bring that up?  It needs to be updated (did  literally nothing happen in the  last three days?) for ongoing.  But hey, I'm done trying to explain this to you today.  I'm glad you've realised now that not all articles linked from the main page are tip-top (indeed, I just randomly  clicked on four, two of which had maintenance banners) but the difference is, they're not the target articles.  Good luck making this fly, right now knowing that it's not been updated properly and still supporting it for ongoing is literally indefensible.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The point to me is that this article is good enough for encyclopedic coverage, there is more gained listing it currently than lost by not posting it because of the issues. It's like being at 95% and being held by the last 5%. This is about a literal warzone, information is not going to be made freely available for the convenience of Wikipedia editors in 1st world countries. We should use the material available, it seems to meet the requirements to me and the problems tagged are minor in comparison to what is there. - Indefensible (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – UN Security Council on Friday calls for end to Ethiopia-Tigray fighting. AP, Al Jazeera – Sca (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, article updated with that info. - Indefensible (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update - User:The Rambling Man, User:Joseph2302, User:Amakuru, User:Jayron32, User:NorthernFalcon, User:Scaramouche33, User:Sca - the article has been updated and the orange banners removed (not by me), can you please re-evaluate? - Indefensible (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Eritrea's reaction is uncited. The country is playing a major role in the conflict so including their reaction is important. Otherwise weak support for ongoing.Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isaias Afwerki rare tv interview: Boud (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment –, re your 'alert,' I don't think we've resolved whether this topic should be posted directly to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's been "ongoing" for more than a year. If something has tangibly changed in the last three or four days to mean we are now settling down for a massive campaign, that might be different, but otherwise this appears to be business as usual.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The United Nations Security Council issued a unanimous statement on the subject, how is this event less notable than the COP26, fuel tanker explosion, or Astroworld blurbs? This is arguably more notable or at least in the same class as those, and the article is significantly more encyclopedic. The quality issues have been resolved. - Indefensible (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's the UN announcement? Then make that a blurb suggestion.  As for "significantly more encyclopedic", that's in the eye of the beholder of course. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the content quantity between the articles referenced and the number of sources, there is objectively at least an order of magnitude difference. That is not opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a beauty contest, and it appears that the nominated event has been "ongoing" for a year, so my recommendation is that if something truly significant has occurred, it should be nominated for an ITNC blurb. Good luck! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my nomination, I am just supporting it. But look at the COVID-19 pandemic article, it has been less updated than this article. By your own standard, why does that deserve to stay posted in ongoing? Based on what you wrote above, it should be removed. - Indefensible (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good grief, are you still complaining? If you think the COVID ongoing article should be removed, please nominate it for removal.  It's happened before.  And don't forget, I'm just stating my opinion.  This shouldn't be an ongoing nomination, it's been "ongoing" for a year and nothing really encyclopedic has happened in the last week to make it reasonable for posting to the Ongoing section.  If you think the UN announcement (!!) is worth a blurb, go for it.  Meanwhile, this is going nowhere. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussing the rules and their validity is appropriate, do you not think so? You are free to not reply if no longer interested, I am just expressing my opinion as well. This nomination probably would have been unfairly SNOW closed without a support vote, but instead the article has been improved so it has been productive. - Indefensible (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to other people continuing this discussion, what I do object to is complaints about "other stuff", about "numbers of references", etc. I'm pleased the article has had more eyes on it.  I just think if the nomination had been better made, this would have had a better outcome for all.  Going all-in on an Ongoing when the event has been in train for a year is doomed to fail.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There should not be a fundamental issue with cross-referencing to different subjects for comparison in my opinion, because that gets "out of the box" of a single topic and gets at the meta details of improving Wikipedia as encyclopedia. You may see differently and that's fine, but I don't think viewing it differently should be a problem. I will probably reply on certain bits on the talk page as appropriate.
 * However, note that initial opposing votes on this nomination from you and others were not based on being an ongoing vs blurb nomination. Frankly it does not matter either way in my opinion so long as it meets the requirements (which I think it does). The initial comments were objecting based on quality. Those quality issues have been fixed, so the initial objections are no longer valid. - Indefensible (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive this: the very first thing I look for in an ongoing nomination isn't "significance" or "number of sources" or whatever, it's "is it really updated nicely and appropriately". It wasn't, it was actually tagged for the opposite.  Then once that appeared to be resolved, you pinged me and I questioned what actual "ongoing" reality was suddenly worthy, versus a blurb.  I haven't had an answer.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair, keep in mind the ping was not just for you but also the others who voted oppose based on quality. Frankly I do not care too much whether the entry is a blurb or ongoing per above. The only person who initially opposed based on ongoing was Amakuru, and there is a separate reply for that above.
 * If quality is no longer an issue and we are looking at ongoing, then we should look at the guidelines. As you know, they are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section
 * The article has been updated, so what criteria does the article still not meet? - Indefensible (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been going on for *over a year* at this point. It seems a bit odd to post something that started a year ago as 'ongoing'. I would have supported it if it was maybe a week after the war began, however. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. If something remarkable has recently happened then in which case this should be blurbed really. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying that something that has been ongoing is not appropriate for ongoing. What difference does it make? Covid-19 has been going on for over a year at this point and the article is less updated, so there is an inconsistency there. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Not ongoing news? Amnesty International 5 Nov "Ethiopia: Country on brink of catastrophe as Tigray conflict escalates"; The Guardian 7 Nov "The Guardian view on Ethiopia: sliding deeper into disaster". Boud (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the updating of Tigray War is in the sub-articles. Template:Tigray conflict currently lists about 157 sub-articles, which makes a new Wikipedia article on the Tigray War typically about once every two days. This is rather unsurprising given the events taking place and the sources available. There's a high risk of the wider Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present) across Ethiopia being stoked into a full civil war of 110 million people. Boud (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the "updates" in question are only important enough for sub-articles, it seems a stretch to say they're of the calibre that would get them a slot in ITN. In any case, as I said before, propose a blurb for something that's been recently added to the article and we can consider it. Until then, this discussion seems rather moot. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in the guidelines that an ongoing entry requires starting as a blurb and then rolling down? - Indefensible (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurb proposal: The Tigray War threatens the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. matching updates such as . Boud (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID-19 pandemic has had 500 edits since 17 May 2021, while Tigray War has had 830 edits since 19 May 2021. So Tigray War is about 70% more ongoing than COVID-19 pandemic if we ignore sub-articles. If we consider sub-articles, then my guess is that COVID-19 pandemic would be more editorially active (including edits updating official data on infection and death counts no matter whether the official data is reliable data or fake data, but that's a separate issue.) Boud (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree, sadly no one else seems to care unfortunately. It seems pretty clear that guidelines are not being applied consistently across entries using these as examples. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia. - Indefensible (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given that this has been an ongoing thing for a year, we'd need a critically major event to actually promote it to a blurb first and then may settled down into an ongoing. Making it ongoing now without any reason this late into the event is really not helpful (I could understand if we were maybe a week or month late). --M asem (t) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say in the guidelines that an ongoing event cannot be listed to ongoing because the nomination is late relative to the beginning of the event? It seems highly contradictory that ongoing events cannot be listed in ongoing. Also, where is starting as a blurb and then rolling down into ongoing required in the guidelines? - Indefensible (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP on Nov. 8 says Eritrean soldiers remain in Tigray, and reports continued mass detentions of Tigrayans. – Sca (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Pierson

 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) Booker prize

 * Comment Both Galgut and the book also are in good shape (the book may be a tad short but has sufficient content) to also be featured. --M asem (t) 20:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Both articles seem to be in solid state. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The bolded Booker Prize article lacks any significant prose, being mainly a short-and long-list. Stephen 04:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose bolding the book article instead. Ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 08:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The winner is normally bolded, and he needs a couple more refs. Stephen 08:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose this, the ITNR is for the Booker Prize event not for the person's biography. We should encourage expansion of the prize's article, as that's the important thing for this nomination. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2021 Booker Prize needs significant prose expansion, as it's currently 381 characters of prose which is far from enough. And everything including the tables would need to be sourced (which shouldn't be too difficult I guess, I'm sure there's sources with the whole short and longlists). <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Joseph. No short-cuts please, it's the prize article that is ITN/R and that one needs to be brought up to scratch. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where in ITNR does it say the award is the target article? Reviewing archives: 2019, the author and book were targets, 2017 book only. In 2013 we used the main Booker Prize article, and in we did post the 2012 Man Booker Prize as the target then (not author or book), but clearly that was expanded out. 2014 we had targetted 2014 Man Booker Prize but that was pulled after posting for the concerns expressed here, so by the logic I'm seeing, we've since decided to focus on the author and/or book as the appropriate target rather than try to flesh out the yearly prize article (whether that's due to lack of coverage of the nomination process or not, I'm not sure). But I see no issue with using book/author as targets as the Booker Prize is just an announcement of the award, similar to the Nobels, where we expect the winners to be the target articles. In contrast to Oscars or BAFTAS which are ceremony-based things and expect the awards themselves to be the target. --M asem (t) 14:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. Exactly what expansion do editors expect from an article on a single year's edition of a literary prize? It's going to be the shortlist and longlist and winner. The top-level article Booker Prize could be expanded, as could The Promise (Galgut novel) and Damon Galgut, but it's bizarre to suggest that the 2021 Booker Prize article is ever going to get much bigger (sometimes there are controversies about the awarding of the prize on a given year—see Katherine Garrison Chapin for one long-ago example—but 2021 doesn't seem to be a year of controversy). I'm almost tempted to redirect any year-by-year Booker Prize articles to the top-level one, but that would be a lengthy project that I'm not keen on. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." This nom currently has the incorrect target, the alt blurb just added is correct. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems odd, as there's one sentence of text about the prize in the person's article. WP:ITN says The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. So I don't think one sentence in the biographical article is enough. And surely the prize article can be expanded nevertheless, as do we really want to link to a micro stub article with unsourced tables? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have to be sensible about what the update is expected. Nobel winners likely only get one or two sentence updates if there article was already in good condition when they win. And that's fine. --M asem (t) 14:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb which has correct target and is in a reasonable condition. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. I'm comfortable with bold-linking The Promise (Galgut novel) if 2021 Booker Prize can't be brought up to standard, but not bolding the author. The Booker prize is given for a single book, not an oeuvre of work. The book's article is in a better state than Damon Galgut anyway. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting alt2. --Tone 15:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tone, thanks, glad to see it up! Is the bot that posts a notice on my talk page down? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georgie Dann

 * Oppose per now Article far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs attention (referencing, discographies) JW 1961 Talk 22:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support now looks well referenced thanks to, I'll go ahead and remove the orange refimprove tag if no one objects JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I've been improving his wikibio and it seems to be ready. Take a look at it as soon as you can and see if you see everything correct. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 World Series

 * Support Per WP:ITNSPORTS Rockin (Talk) 03:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Game summaries are of good quality and referenced.  Sounder Bruce  04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Marked ready since this is ITNR and the article looks good. I would say to go with the altblurb rather than the blurb -- "in baseball" should suffice. -- Calidum  04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 06:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) Disappearance of Cleo Smith

 * Oppose Provincial to the UK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Australia actually, but provincial nonetheless. Stephen 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Who? Yet another MWWS issue that we should not give front page attention to. --M asem (t) 01:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Who?" Literally me on every RD nom  KingOf AllThings  (thou shalt chatter!) 18:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose People go missing all the time. People get murdered all the time (worse than being kidnapped), but murders of random people aren't posted to ITN. Steelkamp (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- what? This is not at all appropriate for ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  01:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Li Zehou

 * Comment There are some cn tags and there is no mention of his death and later life. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Fadhul

 * Comment - Not really a politician, government administrator yes though. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready. 49 children....Jesucrist. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Lagos high-rise collapse

 * Support article looks okay, and we've posted other building collapses recently. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reuters puts toll at 22. – Sca (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Joseph2302. Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is relatively short, but does not seem lacking for any major points. News sources appear to be covering the story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is minimally sufficient, and this seems to be a notable disaster.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 15:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can someone "give me the credits"? I already did it for Alalch Emis who created the article. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 17:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – At barely 350 words of text, article seems quite thin for MP promotion. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Spencer T• C 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. ... This 355-word item has been displaced from ITN by more recent news. The new item has 326 words. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nelson Freire

 * Support Article is well written and sourced. Looks good to go. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the lede was way too short before, but I've fixed that now. Good to go. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  (please use&#32; on reply&#59; thanks!) 23:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aaron T. Beck

 * Weak oppose The article has several sentences without citations. I'm working on it because I too would like to see Beck get ITN recognition.
 * Support I've fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we consider a blurb? He's definitely top of his field and a transformative figure in psychiatry.Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Please feel free to continue with the discussion on blurbing. --PFHLai (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I would also support a blurb. Hard to think of someone more transformative than Aaron Beck (other than Freud). 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:5183:A3B:515B:ECF3 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb There's nothing additional to say about the manner of his death or the situations surrounding it that needs further explanation. RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference

 * Oppose. The conference is only just beginning, and the 1.5C target is something that's already in effect from the Paris agreement. If any big developments come out of Cop26 then we can post those, but the mere fact of the summit opening is not an ITN item IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. We should consider this event when the conference ends and we know what agreement (if any) has been reached. Merely starting the talks is not sufficient. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose not much has changed since last time this was nominated: . <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait – Still too early. Coverage is of a preliminary nature.   Perhaps we should close this until something newsworthy comes out of the big confab. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait to see what if any resolutions are made from the conference, but generally opposed to just news blurb about the conference. --M asem (t) 13:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought the mere fact of something being in the news all over the planet - like 120 world leaders meeting - was enough for an ITN item. Meanwhile is there anything needs improving in the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, and highly reliable news sources are covering this story. Checks every box for posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that if we were going to post this, we should be following how we post political summits at ITNR, which is, at their conclusion. (per this discussion ) Even though this is NOT ITNR, the same principle should be held if deemed notable for posting --M asem (t) 14:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That discussion includes "This would not stop the opening being nominated in the normal manner should it be unusually significant for some reason." I would argue that 120 world leaders meeting is unusually significant - they only meet today and tomorrow so I feel it should be posted straight away. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the current blurb is misleading, as the 1.5 C change is already agreed by the Paris Agreement. And as far as I can see, there haven't actually been any newsworthy developments from this so far. If there are, then that would be the time to post IMO. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 120 world leaders meeting is newsworthy in itself. Re 1.5 you are right that that was agreed as an aim at Paris. But it is in danger of becoming almost impossible - that is why UK specifies keeping it feasible as a goal of the conference. However you or anyone else may well be able to come up with a better blurb - I welcome suggestions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This user (an ex-journalist) contends that delegates merely meeting to discuss global issues is, in most cases, not newsworthy in the ITN sense, as talk by itself is without tangible impact no matter how important the topic. (An exception might be a peace conference to end a major war.) – Sca (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence of newsworthiness is determined by news actually covering it. That we wish or hoped that news was not covering it because we don't personally believe it is worthy is not newsworthiness.  News decides what is newsworthy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion more than once. Let's agree to disagree. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * He said newsworthy "in the ITN sense" which we usually call "signficance." If we posted everything that RS covered, ITN would be nothing but Kardashians and K-Pop. 159.53.174.147 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable news sources. We assess where something is being covered; how it is being covered, to what depth it is being covered, etc.  The BBC doesn't really assign it's top investigative reporters to do stories on Kardashians and K-pop. You've invented a problem that does not exist.  You're tilting at windmills.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. As witnessed by the parallel phenomenon that some pop stars get Wiki articles exceeding 10,000 words. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jayron's position is always easy to sweep away, e.g. we have shedloads of RS news sources talking about what the Queen had to say about COP26 today but never, not in a million years, would anyone ever consider it ITN-worthy. There is, and must be, a level of common sense applied to this, not just "it's in the news, per RS, and an update was suitable".  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have somebody writing about what the Queen had to say. The difference is using discernment on which sources to use to determine if something is significant.  The difference between your position and mine is that your position is, and has always been, "things are significant because I like them" and my position has always been "Things are significant because the right kinds of sources are covering it".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly Jayron. The BBC, The Independent, The Times, The Guardian, Sky News, The Daily Telegraph, USA Today, Yahoo, etc etc all covered the queen's comments in detail.  It matches your "standard".   And no, you don't know my "position" at all, all the rest of us know is that "your position" is flawed because it would allow any old crap to be posted.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you show me where I argued that we should be posting "any old crap"?  Also, the fact that the BBC writ large covers something is not what I have ever argued for.  The BBC is covering this conference in detail, not just the Queen's comments.  That's what makes it newsworthy.  The Queen's comments are irrelevant.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * REALLY? The works I've listed have literally entire articles dedicated to what the queen has said.  That matches your own odd definition of what needs to be posted, covered by multiple RS and a suitable update: bingo!  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still haven't brought that topic up. You have.  I've only said that the current blurb is worth posting.  Again, you're tilting at windmills.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again? You're getting confused.  You've been hoisted by your own petard. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can win today if it makes you feel better. Not arguing with you is far more useful to me than being right.  Congratulations.  I'm wrong and you're right.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can one get hoisted by one's own wind turbine? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. And one can be proven wrong time after time after time, but it doesn't stop the misery.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ooh, someone pass me that handy sledgehammer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just disappointed the other muppet hasn't turned up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey guys I only need an admin now at the bottom of this request - so please turn off your computers and get outside https://xkcd.com/2247/ Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Chidgk1, are you the "other muppet"? Martinevans123 (Belittled since at least 2017...) 18.18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasting time and resource since 2007 I think Martin. You found your level with the other muppet, but it's really a waste of time all this, and your "comedic" YouTube links etc.   The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No both of you have been helpful - very glad this is ITN at last - thanks to all who helped get it in Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I !voted. Sorry if that's "wasting time and resource". Martinevans123 (Providng "comedic" YouTube links etc since at least 2017...) 18.38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Question - if the conference has only just begun and the article is decent, how about posting it to ongoing? - Indefensible (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems reasonable to me- it's happening for next 11 days, and that way we wouldn't be posting a questionable blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems to be a reasonable idea. I'm agnostic as to where it is posted, the article is in good shape, and where it is posted in the box seems inconsequential to me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is probably better than a blurb right now, presumably the blurb will need to be updated at least once the conference is over with any major results but will probably have rolled off by then, so it would be repeated. If the conference goes smoothly then it can be maintained in the box there and get any updates as required for an ongoing post, once it concludes the ongoing can be taken off and converted to a blurb, and only if something unexpected happens like a terrorist attack would it otherwise be noteworthy for a blurb prior to conclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is meant to be used for news titles where there would be expected routinely new headlines (with a high chance for blurbability at ITN) so that we're not posting multiple blurbs about the same event day after day (eg like with Olympics or World Cup). These types of conferences usually get news when they are started, and when they conclude if any significant resolutions are made, but the expectations for intermediate stories are very low, and thus this is not a good idea for ongoing. --M asem (t) 17:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support adding to Ongoing. Seems better suited for that section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing would be the best solution IMO. We could post a blurb if a major agreement is reached, but that's questionable. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and ongoing and Wait until the end. Ongoing is not a solution, as that is for articles with "regularly updated...new, pertinent information." There is no reason to crystalball that substantive material is going to emerge from the meetings on a continuous basis. 159.53.110.220 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no updates then you could just nominate it for removal, the opposite case is the article never gets posted but I agree with the nominator that having the event itself and the article should probably qualify for some posting on quality and significance. - Indefensible (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's precisely what I'm saying, we can't post it now on the speculation that it will receive interesting updates - we need to show that the event has already been getting regular updates based on new pertinent information before posting to ongoing. (note: I made the preceding IP comment while logged out)     GreatCaesarsGhost   01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The event has just started and the article is starting to receive updates, I think one could say that already qualifies for ongoing per what you wrote. That's why there are some people voting support. - Indefensible (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until there's an actionable deliverable or other hard outcome. CoatCheck (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support only because the top story on ITN is nearly a week old and we need to put something new up there, and this conference is close enough to work. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an acceptable reason. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, I'm supporting because the article is well-cited, meeting quality requirements; and because the event is headline news, meaning that readers are likely to be searching for it. Furthermore, regarding the subject of climate change, I would argue that a failure to reach an accord would be just as significant as an accord, given the potential global consequences of not reaching an accord. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this is an ongoing topic of global importance with nearly consistent global news coverage for the next few weeks, should have a highlight and then transition to ongoing, Sadads (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – As with some other recent situations, posting this directly to Ongoing might be a reasonable gambit, given the garrulity of the multiple players and the expectation of it going on for some time. – Sca (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - As we now have a statement from the leaders I would prefer to have a blurb first before putting it in "ongoing" later. I have added an alternative blurb for your consideration. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be updated to say that, currently the word "deforestation" isn't mentioned at all. - Indefensible (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the deforestation thing is not yet a signed agreement its' what the UK has claimed to have commitments from, but no one has inked anything yet to paper, so this would not be an appropriate blurb to make. If that is an agreement they sign off before the end of this event, that would be appropriate, but not on simply a claim from the UK. --M asem  (t) 05:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see from the BBC live feed that they have now signed. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this deforestation communique is a vague aspiration, not a binding legal commitment. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ongoing, perhaps it is because the conference is in Glasgow, but events from COP26 have been continually at the headline of news here in the UK for the last few days. LukeSurlt c 09:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing. Just post whatever the headline takeaway is at the end of the conference. That is sufficient. Ongoing is intended for stories where thefe are actual major newsworthy developments coming daily, which isn't the case here. There hasn't been a development suitable for ITN yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe a significant development is the methane pledge I am about to add to the article - the point being that as most of it does not require approval from the US Congress it is more likely to happen in the USA than some of the other Biden green ambitions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/02/joe-biden-plan-cut-global-methane-emissions-30-percent Chidgk1 (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This methane pledge would be significant too if it were more than just a pledge. We're looking for something that is a commitment comparable to the Paris Agreement. We know that the nations would have to go back and work their legislative bodies to do something, to wit, the Paris Agreement was the end result of one of these COP conferences, hence another argument to wait to see what happens after two weeks. --M asem (t) 12:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support: biggest summit the UK has ever hosted and being described as the most significant climate event since the 2015 Paris Agreement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC) (p.s. would also support a methane limit at ITN)
 * Support – They've done something, even if it's only words. Favor alt2. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. There is quite a support to post something, and a blurb seems more reasonable than ongoing. --Tone 13:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should the image also be changed? Or is the logo wording too small? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I am happy with the Japanese PM as the logo is pretty boring - but could his blurb or caption be changed to say he is attending the conference? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also against the logo, as the wording would be way to small on an image that size. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe our blurb could be extended to say the Japanese PM is attending? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that suggest he was, in some way, the "main attraction"? We all know that's Boris Johnson someone else. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not "Nippy"? I don't think it would be misleading. But if we boost his ego maybe he will close coal power plants more quickly! For example add "(one pictured)" after "world leaders" in our blurb. Like Economist captions try to be a bit witty. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A funny Economist?? "I laughed so much I joined Stripe". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked and Japan has signed both pledges. So if my proposal is OK with you guys could an admin change the blurb from "World leaders" to "World leaders (one pictured)"? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess Fumio Kishida will be pleased to get star Wiki billing! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is OK with you could you change the blurb from "World leaders" to "World leaders (one pictured)"? Also please could you link "deforestation" and "methane emissions". Chidgk1 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going to randomly choose a pic, let's go with David Attenborough Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also fine by me - but I am not an admin so cannot change it as far as I know Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's not a "world leader", very regrettably. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-psoting comment as important if not more important than the "vow" to end deforestation, is the notable absence of the head of state of the leading CO2 producer. 2A02:2F0E:DB04:D300:4D69:4E08:44A9:6F6C (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question - is this entry going to go to ongoing or just roll off after the blurb gets replaced? - Indefensible (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say let it roll off. If there are some new developments worthy of a blurb update, we do that. --Tone 18:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing I think it should be in ongoing for the next week until it finishes. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Support for adding it to "Ongoing" until this global event has finished. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2021 Japanese general election

 * Oppose Article has been updated, but has quality problems and an empty section. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 02:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What "quality problems" does the article have besides the empty section? That is the only issue tagged right now. - Indefensible (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any quality problems. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support No major problems, nothing happened but that’s Japan for you. ITN/R/ This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. As per Orbitalbuzzsaw, nothing happened, and the LDP wins again. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not ready. Generally a decent article; I just added inadequate lead tag but that's yellow-level so doesn't preclude posting. However, the only prose on the results is a brief paragraph right at the bottom, which simply re-states the numbers from the table and has no references. This needs some proper prose on the outcome before it should be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest, tables are not a sufficient substitute for quality prose. There should be enough high-quality well-referenced prose about the results of the election, and there isn't as yet.  If that gets fixed, this can be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I see the outcome has now been added to the lead. Minor points - "trans-title" could be used for more of the Japanese cite titles and there is one "clarification needed" Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support article is just about at minimum quality requirements, with only one citation needed tag left; and whoever posts can simply delete that one sentence if it's not referenced by then. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Unlike the Uzbek one, this one is actually democratic, and is well-sourced. Good to go already. TootsieRollsAddict  (talk to me pls I am lonely)  03:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Credit goes to Lmmnhn, Chuborno, 沁水湾, Vacant0, and CringeButSerious for updating the article and getting it up to snuff. Thank you very much for your hard, hard work.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:WaltCip - how come you mentioned that but didn't tag them or their talk pages? - Indefensible (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to? WaltCip- (talk)  17:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, went ahead and did it already. - Indefensible (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)