Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2022

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

(Posted) RD: Christiane Hörbiger
I now added refs to films and awards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks good. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient quality. Please post this before it gets archived. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shatzi Weisberger

 * Obit now added, ready to go. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fully cited. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: John Hadl

 * The "Professional career" section is orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing and the back half of the section has a few footnote-free paragraphs. Stats tables at the bottom of the wikipage also need sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christine McVie

 * Support Article is extensive and updated. Subject was a prominent member of Fleetwood Mac, a major global musical act (R&R Hall of Fame, 4 US and 4 UK number one albums, etc) GeoGreg (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. McVie was an integral part of Fleetwood Mac's most successful lineup. Wrote many of the band's biggest hits, including "Don't Stop", "You Make Loving Fun", and "Everywhere". Lunaroxas (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose McVie was part of a group of music, whose music that spans a human generation or more. Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Several unsourced paragraphs, some have been marked with CN tags. I'd also prefer to have sourcing for Billboard etc placement also included here even if those are sourced on the various album or song articles also, did she even get any nominations or recognition? That seems missing... --M asem  (t) 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Having an article means that she’s notable enough for RD, so that shouldn’t factor into support or opposition. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. WP:ITNQUALITY states "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. Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased.". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're talking about two different things. Blaylockjam10 said significance is not a factor in response to two editors making significance arguments. You're talking about quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for the rest of the day to see if the tags can be addressed. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now addressed the tags; some of the sourcing is not brilliant but hopefully it should be enough to alleviate the opposition above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support No problems with the article. Seth Whales   talk  18:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Quality and referencing much improved.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted I added one cn tag, but it's good enough for the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi

 * Support Significant death, no article issues. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate. Referencing is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As per above. MyriadSims (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . DatGuyTalkContribs 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unsourced content has been removed. Marked as Ready. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Davide Rebellin

 * Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will require work. Additionally the date of death is not clear and there is no citation. The lead claims Nov. 30, but lower down it says he was struck and killed over the weekend of the 26th. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That bit about "the weekend of 26 November" has been edited out. However, there are still a few footnote-free paragraphs in the Career section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still needs more sources.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Two new minerals Elkinstantonite and Elaliite

 * This is extremely cool and I hope these articles will be expanded greatly. A merge might be an option too, as these two articles have a lot of duplicate information. Regardless, these two articles as they stand now are not suitable for an ITN feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am all for good science stories but these two are really short. Maybe a better target would be the article about this meteorite? Tone 10:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be an article on the meteorite individually either. This feels more like a DYK. M asem (t) 13:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it Draft:El Ali meteorite CT55555 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done El Ali meteorite. Seems like this is one of the largest meteorites on Earth. CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no strong understanding of asteroid science, but haven’t they discovered new minerals in meteorites every so often? Juxlos (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Approximately 100 new minerals are recognised every year (see List of minerals recognized by the International Mineralogical Association). It's not unknown for them to appear only in extraterrestrial samples - just two months ago, a new mineral was discovered in a Moon rock . While this story is mildly interesting and the press release has generated a couple of media stories, it has no other significance or likely lasting impact. DYK seems a more appropriate venue, though it might be better to start an article on the meteorite itself and merge the two mineral descriptions into that. Modest Genius talk 13:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Question (I started both articles mentioned) to what extent are the 100 per year notable, making international news, justifying articles? Are there 100 new mineral articles per year, or is this indeed something unusual? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite common, it seems; a few in the last couple years alone. It just happens that The Guardian picked up this story, but I don’t see this exactly on headline or page 1 news. Maybe the science sections. Juxlos (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know either the field or the wikipedia articles well enough to put an estimate on that number. WikiProject Rocks and minerals might know, but doesn't seem very active. New minerals certainly get reported in the mainstream media several times per year. Perhaps the most-covered recent example is davemaoite. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose per above. Normally I would support this as it sounds rather interesting. But it does seem to be not altogether uncommon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Interesting story, but, per above, doesn't quite make it to ITN. Maybe DYK? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. This belongs more to the DYK page. Vida0007 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose DYK is the way to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) Blurb/RD: Jiang Zemin

 * Support Blurb highly important figure in modern Chinese history. Some lack of referencing and all, but that’s gotta be resolved before RD anyway. Juxlos (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow that’s fast. Anyways support on notability, however since the death was literally just announced I suggest we wait until tomorrow so all things that are supposed to be edited is edited before posting on RD. Also there’s an orange tag that needs to be resolved. SBS6577P (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb obviously. Long-term president of China and general secretary of party in the inportant period. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability, once article is fixed.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A leader of the most populous country in the world and an economic reformer who opened up the country deserves a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Multiple citation tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Major figure in contemporary history, an important leader for China. Would be silly to omit him; but do take a while to wait before adding. MarcelDupré1886 (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The death of a long-serving former president of China obviously needs a blurb. Wait until all article problems that need to be resolved before posting on RD are resolved. Evaxooooof25 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support anything. Important and long-serving leader who's popular in online culture (toad worship). Good article. lol1 VNIO&NoBreak;🎌 ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality  for now. A lot of uncited material, including one whole section. Happy for blurb once that's resolved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Kiril Simeonovski and Juxlos. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, important political figure passes.
 * <span style="background:white;border:1px black;box-shadow:2px 2px 2px blue;color:black;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px white;border-radius:999px"> B-MIKE - (Talk) 12:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality for now, 15 citation needed tags - Dumelow (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, sourcing issues. Oppose blurb would support RD only because we have nothing extra to say than that he died.  No extra explanation means nothing to say in a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Still one CN tag. Zemin's role in developing modern China is quite large - certainly more notable than just any old leader. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blub and RD but please wait a few hours. People are already starting to work on improving the article, with a fast pace of edits. I'm personally trying to add citations to Kuhn 2004 which seems like a respected work; hopefully the CN tags can be resolved quickly. DFlhb (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC) I didn't know the difference between blubs and RD, so I forgot to specify I support both; edited 23:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been trimming down the article for a bit. It feels like multiple different people with very little knowledge of the subject has been using the article for an essay-writing practice, so I decided to be aggressive and remove a good chunk of unsourced statements. Plenty of redundant text blocks, too. Juxlos (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts here, but unfortunately I think this has may have been a bit overzealous, for example "Beginning in 1996, Jiang began a series of reforms in the state-controlled media aimed at promoting the "core of leadership" under himself, and at the same time crushing some of his political opponents" and statements like that. If true, it sounds like the sort of thing that should be in the article, and we should concentrate on trying to find sourcing for it rather than chopping it... It's a bit of a paradox, because we want everything cited, but equally we don't usually remove material on sight without at least verifying that no obvious sourcing is available... Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a bunch of citations and a fair bit of detail, and with the help of other editors we've finally resolved all citation needed tags. The article is still light on details on his actual tenure; I'll start work on that. But at least there don't appear to be any obvious falsehoods. I think we're good to go. DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Significant former head of state and article looks good. --2601:249:8E00:420:1409:FBDA:FC7:F1DA (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb important leader, former leader of China. article highly notable. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There are at least 5 CN tags still unresolved here, so this is not yet ready to post. --M asem (t) 20:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those were just added. I've now fixed those except for 1 (an award; couldn't find a source, but I'd support keeping it, hopefully with front-page exposure someone will be able to confirm or debunk it). DFlhb (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go - thanks to for the hard work sourcing the unsourced bits, I reckon it's good enough now. What do others think? I also think there's consensus for a blurb. Marking as ready. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Significant improvements for sure. Post it, I say. Juxlos (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb A major head of state with considerable lasting influence. Meets the threshold for a blurb. Thriley (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article is good. Jiang was a major figure in Chinese and world history (and was rightfully blurbed like Gorbachev's last August). Vida0007 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Aline Kominsky-Crumb

 * Comment My only concern would be with the "Works" section, which apart from some ISBNs appears to be unreferenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derek Granger

 * Support Looks to be sufficient. (An infobox would help but is not obligatory).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Trial of Stewart Rhodes

 * Oppose Not important... Tbh most people have likely never heard of this person or have any interest. This is simply important to too few people. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Oppose one of many that have been tried and convicted for Jan 6 and certainly not the last. --M asem (t) 23:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just for context "Stewart Rhodes’ conviction is the most significant to emerge from the Justice Department’s investigation of the 2021 attack on the Capitol." <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Simplify the blurb. It's too long. Most readers won't have a clue who this bloke is, nor what he was charged with, so will just ignore this. Maybe something like " Stewart Rhodes found guilty of Seditious conspiracy following the January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack." HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I first raised the idea on the talk page, I was told to make it longer...I'm happy for it to be shorter. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's only one potential conviction from 1/6 that would be notable enough for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. This is my first time here, so it seems like I've misjudged this. I had thought a news items on the front page of UK and US news would be a good enough indicator. Are you implying that a presidential conviction is the magnitude of what is needed to make ITN? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The working consensus of ITN/C leans very conservative (not in the political way) as to what is posted on the main page. Trials don't have to be at the level of O.J.'s, but some degree of unique significance is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible to withdraw this as WP:SNOWBALL opposed, but I don't know how to, so if anyone reading this wants to do that, I'd be grateful. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,black,purple,blue);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, Not an interesting subject for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Repeal of Section 377A in Singapore

 * Oppose Not the first and wont be the last. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose laws change all the time, and they are not always permanent. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Donald McEachin

 * Regretful oppose To say this article is bare is the understatement of the century... I obviously don't expect articles coming through here to cover every detail, but there at least has to be some level of holisticness in the prose. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some tags through the article, where necessary, and made efforts to start an electoral history section, which I cannot do at the moment. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important death, deserves to be posted. Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:37, 01 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How important someone is is irrelevant to RD. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support While the article is bare compared to other members of Congress, we have seen worse articles posted on RD. Also to mention McEachin was an important figure in VA politics, making history as one of the first Black people to run for a certain position. Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: No wikibios with orange tags should go on RD. Please expand the thin sections and put in more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Mauna Loa Erupts

 * Wait. It's far too early to know what the impacts will be - so far it's just a bit of lava confined to the summit, and some red skies. Mauna Loa erupts effusively, so it's possible that the increasing volumes of lava start flowing downhill over the following days, and reaches populated areas (the last eruption almost reached Hilo). But unless that happens, it doesn't have the impact necessary for ITN. As a procedural point, if this eruption becomes significant enough to merit consideration for ITN, it would have enough material to split out 2022 eruption of Mauna Loa and use that as the bold link, rather than a few sentences in the much broader Mauna Loa article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was just putting this out there to alert people of a developing story that could become ITN-worthy. Though maybe I'm not nominating correctly(I'm new to Wikipedia) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: China COVID Protests

 * Wait until the blurb for the protests were removed from the main ITN. Not sure whether it would even last that long (given the police are already cracking down protests) but if it does, support given the significance of the event. SBS6577P (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's redundant to me to have a simultaneous listing of a blurb and the same (or even related) item at Ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Premature nomination. Iff the protests are still ongoing when the blurb is about to roll off and there has been no subsequent blurbable event then it should be considered for ongoing. WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until blurb is removed. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Yes, it is too early. Let's revisit when the blurb rolls off. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait If, and only if, it qualifies for Ongoing per the standards, then we can add it when it rolls off the main list. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan Wright (farmer)

 * Support: Article is properly cited. Flibirigit (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION NEEDED] RD: Dr. James Wright

 * Oppose Needs a few more citations - I've added some tags.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a handful of {cn} tags that ought to be addressed before this nom can proceed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No {cn} tags remaining. Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

AFLW Grand Final

 * ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!!!!! I know this is about a sport and a country none of the Admins here care about. Even worse, it's only about WOMEN'S sport. But at least have a bloody look at this nomination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at it. Problem is, much as I think we need more women's sport in ITN ... it's not really ITN, is it? Probably because it's only the 7th time the tournament has ever taken place. As far as I can see, we're really only featuring international women's tournaments so far (apart from a random US basketball and a volleyball tournament, but they take place together).  Now that's something we should probably be looking at, but at the moment I don't think a competition in one of its first iterations meets ITN standards. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of the nature of Australian rules football, an international championship is unlikely for a long time. This is the peak championship in the sport. Kinda like the World Series, if being international is an issue. Even if an international championship evolved, this would be the more important event for much longer still. This is the women's equivalent of the AFL Grand Final, an ITN/R event. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ...if being international is an issue: But then we have at the top of ITNC: —Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WTF? I wasn't the one who objected on the basis of it not being international. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is international interest. Both sides have Irish players and there is considerable coverage over there. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was only responding that "being international" is not supposed to be an issue, not that you originated the issue. —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know this is about a sport and a country none of the Admins here care about: The decision to post any item is driven by consensus from the community, not any particular admin's preference. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So why was it totally ignored for 27 hours? THAT was my reason for that somewhat pointed comment. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't many active admins these these days. Look at the RD nominations. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:WIKICUP also ended in October. —Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * !Voting here is not limited to admins. —Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – Good indications for an item that should be ITN/R. We should discuss adding it as well. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be more inclined to consider supporting this more for page quality than for newsworthiness if there was prose summarizing the two teams' respective season, e.g. similiar to 2021 Rugby World Cup Final.—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated at GA. I'd be more inclined to add it if it came up during the review. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm merely suggesting what would sway my opinion for this to be posted on ITN as a quality article that might not necessarily be headline news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the Qualification section. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assure the world that this HAS BEEN headline news in Australia, which is obviously enough. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the desire to get more women's sport into ITN, this does not appear to be significant enough. Aussie rules football is a minority sport that doesn't merit more than one story per year, and we already post the men's event. The women's version is recently established, small, and attracts a tiny fraction of the news coverage (at least as far as I can find from Google News). If they had been held at the same time then a joint blurb might make sense; but IMO the women's event doesn't reach the bar for a blurb on its own. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The men's event is huge. Routinely attracts an audience in the stadium of over 100 thousand people. It's a whole day thing. The women's event cannot therefore be at the same time. You are therefore effectively saying you won't ever post the women's event. And Google News obviously won't show you what the coverage was like in Australia earlier this week. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't expect the women's event to be as big a deal as the men's, but I do think they need to be within a factor of a few of each other to be considered similarly important. It appears there's currently more than an order of magnitude gap in the media coverage, attendance, TV audience etc. Why wouldn't Google News pick up the coverage? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is up-to-snuff, news sources have covered the event. Checks every box for main page posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because news sources have covered it doesn't meet its significant enough for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What evidence, then, are you using to demonstrate significance? If someone is unfamiliar with the topic, how are you to show them that it is significant? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we really be posting the championship for a semi-professional league that's not ITNR? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having more than 1 million attendees and more than 2 million viewers seems more relevant to me. Is that a lot by Australian standards? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Our article AFL Women's season seven says the average attendance this season was 2,700 per match. That's tiny. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the uncalled-for foot-stamping and screaming, support per Jayron32. Certainly warrants inclusion. And something not being ITN/R is not a reason to not post it (indeed, items can't become ITN/R without first becoming successfully posted through ITN/C).--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Modest Genius. Just doesn't seem like something significant enough to post. League is (per our article) semi-pro, not ITNR, and only gets 2 million viewers (compare that to, say, the college football championship, which we don't post, which gets more than ten times that amount of viewers). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...in a country with fifteen times the population. So not much of a claim really. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, an average attendance of just 2,700? Why is that worthy of posting? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Low-quality league with small attendance, it's also full of people who play multiple sports part-time. This tells you the depth and quality of competition. If people from outside Aus saw photos of the players, they would strong oppose - many of them are in terrible physical condition Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On that basis, every article on Test cricket from before around 1980 should probably be deleted from Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How does that make any sense? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple and well known fact. (Perhaps not in the USA.) In those days it was common for Test cricketers, especially Australians, to play other sports. And all teams tended to have some players who could not have been described as being in great physical condition, typically spin bowlers and hard hitting batsmen. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not true anyway. They are elite athletes and look like this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This one most certainly is not, although yes, some of them are proper athletes. Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

[ATTENTION NEEDED] RD: Richard Baawobr

 * Comment Generally appears well cited, but could do with a copyedit (particularly this recent insertion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks okay, but I do wonder if there's any more in-depth sources. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough with 500+ words of prose, but the contents seem short on details on what the subject actually worked on. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig reports no violations. This wikibio looks READY for RD, but I wish there is more on the subject's work to read about. --PFHLai (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clare Marx

 * Support, Article is OK. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted No objectors.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) China COVID protests

 * Support Article seems to be of sufficient quality. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 09:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- Mass protests in a country where protests are extraordinarily rare? Yes, worthy of posting. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Quality is good. Mass protests notable. The Covid-19 protests in China article needs to be incorporated into the blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely significant considering this happened in a country where protests are extremely rare. SBS6577P (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Orange tag at the moment, needs to be addressed first. --Tone 11:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have addressed and removed it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely notable event, added altblurb including the Urumqi fire that started the protests. Azpineapple (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb  as Urumqi fire should be included as the cause.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 11:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . Note: as it stands, the wording of the alt-blurb seemes too convoluted. El_C 12:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fire should probably be included as a separate bolded link within the blurb, as it's notable in its own right. Although it's too short to pass ITN on quality at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing - the fire doesn't have long-term notability compared to the protests, so there's no reason a separate article on it should be made. It should be part of the protest article. This is where editors tend to lose focus of NOTNEWS because they want to be first to create that new article. M asem (t) 23:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added to blurb: Following a deadly fire in Ürümqi..., which hopefully addresses earlier "convoluted" concern. Since no consensus to also bold the fire (for now), I did not go into details about the casualties either. Notability concerns of the fire page can be addressed through WP:AFD, if necessary, but it appears reasonable to briefly address "why?" in the protest blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted by, the nominator.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained at errors, but the fire did not cause the protests, as the change you made implied. The protests had been happening, the fire spurred them on.  That's why I don't think treating the fire separately is a good idea. --M asem  (t) 04:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've responded at WP:ERRORS. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support for Original Blurb. The main story here are the protests, which may be partially caused by the fire, but only partially. I agree with Masem that that doesn't need to be a focus in the blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(new) RD: Henrie Adams

 * Comment: Relatively light on depth (essentially a "CV in prose format"); anything else that can be said about his musical style as a conductor?  Spencer T• C 06:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How would I know? I looked for more sources, and was happy to find one (!) in English (which supported much of the prose which the former five didn't). Both Dutch and Spanish are almost Chinese to me. Images (in the sources), video, number of recordings and length of tenure tell me enough about notability which shouldn't be of much importance anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Eleanor Jackson Piel

 * Oppose Still a stub, will need expanding to be Main Page ready.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Cole (American football)

 * Support - looks good, nice job on all the newspaper clippings. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jens Bullerjahn

 * Support - could be expanded a bit from Jens Bullerjahn, but looks good enough to post. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: David Murray (cricketer)

 * Oppose. I've just requested a citation, but even when that is fixed this needs expansion - about half the very short article is about his drug use, and there is virtually no prose about his actual playing (and nothing at all about domestic cricket). Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Too short (234 words of prose). Too little info on his cricketing, and even that lacks referencing. --PFHLai (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doddie Weir

 * Support Article is of good quality TRAVBRUHH (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is missing so many citations I've added an orange tag to the article rather than mark them all specifically. One section is also just proseline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I have gone through the previous text and referenced many claims, also added further information about his career with accompanying references. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Well-sourced now with 70 footnotes. The two outstanding Cn's are probably more because of all the one-sentence paragraphs. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally seems resolved now.—Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vladimir Makei

 * Oppose The end of the biography section is a bit sparse on context. Also, there's a cn tag on his birthplace. Having said that, more than happy to change to support if those are addressed. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 15:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unexpected death and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sparse articles should at least contain as much as recent article on a person's death. For example, missing from this Reuters article are 1) Criticism of Russia before the 2020 protest 2) Views on invasion of Ukraine 3) Criticism from Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jorge Medina

 * Support - Looks sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks great. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 15:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mochamad Hasbi

 * Support Looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Impressive meticulous work. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Irene Cara

 * Support: The article isn't fantastic right now, but the coverage of her death offers an opportunity for new cites to be added.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quality of the article at the present moment is the only thing that matters, and while it is significantly better than when I first nominated it is still not good enough to post, with large sections unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable artist. Posting an RD seems appropriate here. Urbanracer34 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't assessed here, every notable person can be posted if the article is up to standard. All sentences and facts and filmography need to be referenced. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short on references.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support only if and when the Post-Fame 1980–1999 section is fully sourced Josey Wales Parley 13:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the prose, the tables and bullet-points following the prose also need a lot more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until all issues regarding citations/sources have been addressed. Support once those are solved. Vida0007 (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A long way from being ready; there are two entire sections and at least five other paragraphs without a single source. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably faded away before a lot of editors' time. I added how she was cheated out of royalties and then said she was blackballed from the industry.—Bagumba (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ismail Tara

 * Comment: Needs considerable prose expansion and refs.  Spencer T• C 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With only 179 words of prose, this stubby wikibio is too short. Please expand it. The Filmography table and the bullet-points after the prose are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Magnus Enzensberger

 * Support. One of the key German intellectuals of the 20th century. The article looks OK to me. /Julle (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the main thinkers in Germany, along with Alexander Kluge and Jürgen Habermas. -- ElLutzo (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead needs an expanded summary.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - German intellectual, one of the key ones in his country.BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a bit but he deserves more. I'm too tired right now to do more, - past midnight here. Please look at Hampe below who died almost a week earlier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Börje Salming

 * Support, one of the greats in ice hockey and the article looks fine. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Perhaps the most famous Swedish ice hockey player of all time, and had a tremendous impact on the sport as he paved the way for more European players in the NHL. /Julle (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Börje_Salming needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a shockingly fast decline from his public appearances two weeks ago. Unfortunately, I've had to orange-level tag three sections (one, the list of awards, was subsequently deleted), and there are several cn tags throughout the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the national team text was moved, but its coverage remains sparse. —Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've undone that move - club and international play are fundamentally different so shouldn't be merged. Looks like an attempt to get around the orange tag without actually improving the article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a section with a few sentences are weird in my opinion. Someone might be able to expand.BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have some sources that should help with that. I can add to it in a few hours from now. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have expanded it, but will leave for others to determine if the tag should remain. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Also added one source. BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose above.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The death place in the infobox is unsourced, and not mentioned in the body. The death date is wrtten as  24 November, but the cited sources only say his death was announced on that date, not explicitly mentioning when he died. Is there anything more definitive?—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed a sourced that states he died at his home in Nacka. But good call to see that.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And that source also confirms he died on Thursday (24th).—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Duplicate) 2022 Malaysian general election

 * Refer original nomination on 19th November. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: O'dell Owens

 * Long enough with 850+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints at all. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Ray McCain

 * Support. Article looks in good shape. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Footnote #2 to https://www.sms.edu/uploaded/images/about/Press_Kits/Notable_Saint_Mary's_Alumnae.pdf is referenced almost 30 times, but the source only says Betty Ray McCain – Saint Mary’s Class of 1950 junior college - former N.C. Secretary of Cultural Resources; first female chair of the N.C. Democratic Party. Something is awry with this one source (at least).—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A number of those footnotes have just been removed or replaced with a {cn} tag. --PFHLai (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Three {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 FIFA World Cup Group E
{{atop|Topic is currently at ongoing. There is no realistic chance of consensus forming to post results of an individual match. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)} }}


 * Strong oppose, recommend SNOW close We do not post intermediate results of an ongoing competition. --M asem (t) 00:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Chesapeake shooting

 * Oppose Mass shootings are common in the US. We can only post the most severe ones.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment  In order to make the item more accessible to all readers, the blurb should mention the country where this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose something like the 606th mass shooting in the US this year alone, not even a precedent for a shooting in a Walmart. Tragic but not in any way unusual. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - so common now, in fact, that we had a nomination for a shooting just the other day. These are always tragic items, but until there are very few mass shootings in the US, these won't become postable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The circumstances of this particular case might be interesting to some; it came less than a week after the Colorado Springs shooting.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, oppose routine in USA. That’s exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose although if this makes Walmart reconsider its gun sales, that news should probably be ITN. If this gets posted, any blurb should include that (by all reports) it was a Walmart employee, not some random person who wandered in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Düzce earthquake

 * Oppose Earthquakes can be damaging and fork up a few casualties but not all are suitable for ITN. This event pales in comparison to the one in Indonesdia—casualty numbers are minimal. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Dora the Axe-plorer. Good faith nomination but unless there are many deaths I don’t see the need to post to ITN. Let’s just say that compared to this we have bigger fishes to fry. SBS6577P (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with all the comments above; not all earthquakes need to be blurbed, especially those that are "relatively" minor like this one. RIP to the 2 fatalities though. Vida0007 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frances Campbell-Preston

 * Support new article and seems well-sourced enough. Skynxnex (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio currently has only 236 words of prose. It's a tad stubby. Is there anything more to write about her? What did she do while she was a lady-in-waiting? Any more on her publications? Well received? --PFHLai (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the Honours section needs REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Footnotes can be found there now. --PFHLai (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With 347 words of prose, this wikibio is no longer a stub. The single-sentence paragraph on the subject's education needs a footnote. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai Cn resolved. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnote, Bagumba. --PFHLai (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Helicopter crash in Charlotte NC
Oppose - I don't see that a small helicopter crash with such a low death toll is notable. And I see no coverage about this except locally. In recent months, we are averaging at least a helicopter crash a day, and I've never seen one ITN before. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination; I have reformatted it. Please propose a proposed "blurb" to post in the space to the right of "blurb =" in the above template, and include a link to a reliable source next to "sources =". For additional information and fields, see Template:ITN candidate. Best,  Spencer T• C 03:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Realized I messed it up as soon as I hit publish. Trying to fix but there keep being conflicting edits. I am adding my references now. EEBuchanan (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Still, It's on CNN, New York Times, Associated Press, and some others I haven't had time to link yet. That's not exactly local. The thing is less the crash and more the fact the news company employees involved, that's why people are interested. A crash is one thing. A helicopter crashing and killing two news employees, and their colleagues having to report it on air on their own station, is a bit different/out of the ordinary. Plus a lot of interviewed witnesses are saying the pilot deliberately steered into the embankment, possibly to avoid traffic and nearby buildings - that also seems a bit unusual. EEBuchanan (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is not local to only one country? And surely most of the other, daily, helicopter crashes are more notable, given the circumstances under which they happen. What is internationally notable here? Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As mentioned never done this before so wasn't sure how it worked. Thanks!
 * EEBuchanan (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not quite a commercial passenger aircraft crash, it still involved a crash while people aboard the flight were doing their jobs akin to military disasters, and thus not stuff we cover. Even without that, this is a very minor event, and just because it is getting a burst of coverage now does not make it a long-term encyclopedic topic; its of very narrow scope. --M asem (t) 05:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Like I said before, never done this before (nominated one recent death but no ITN before unless it was a long time ago and I forgot) so I wasn't sure if it would go or not. Figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
 * EEBuchanan (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this does not at all reach the bar for ITN. A good faith nomination nonetheless. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor accident albeit with sad consequences. Not going to make the top 5000 news stories around the globe for 2022 though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cecilia Suyat Marshall

 * Support Sufficient quality. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Y. Brown Jr.
Support - Article looks good.CoatCheck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information Alex-h (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination: England and Wales are now minority Christian countries for the first time   Alborzagros (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Hampe
Another obit added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Will we manage do deal with this anytime soon, or should I move him to 21 Nov when the obits first appeared? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Some hours later: same question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "Television, DVD and video productions" isn't sourced. Better comment out? Grimes2 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was commented out. Someone opened it. Sigh. Will comment out again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be OK now. Grimes2 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. At that point, I moved the entry from 18 Nov - day of death - to 21 Nov when the first obits came. He should not get ignored because of days passing before his death became known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - I was getting nervous ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilko Johnson

 * Comment There is one spot in prose that has a cn tag and discography is mostly unsourced. I don't want to !oppose, as 95% of the article is fine, but the discography needs to be sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Cites fixed - marked Ready. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  Unsourced birth name and birth date. Also unsourced that he changed his legal name to "Wilko Johnson".—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba Found and added a citation for his birth date and name. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sunshineisles2: Thanks. I don't have access to that source. If "Wilko Johnson" is only his stage name and was not changed to his legal name, it should not show "born" in the lead sentence per MOS:FULLNAME and MOS:BIRTHNAME. —Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and marked ready again. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrasing the article uses is that he "[changed] his stage name to Wilko Johnson" in 1972, which to me infers that he didn't change his legal name. Though it's also possible he might have later, but the source doesn't confirm that. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(closed) Saudi Arabia beat Argentina

 * Oppose and suggest SNOW close. Every World Cup has upsets, and this one is no different. YD407OTZ (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As we have the ongoing, there is no need to post any individual game result, regardless of how "shocking" the result may have been. M asem (t) 13:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose and snow close per YD407OTZ and Masem. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm inclined to let the nomination run rather than SNOW closing it shortly after it being opened, but I agree that no individual game result sans the final will have lasting significance.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose any and all individual match results other than the final. Agree with snow closing this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, at a minimum. No prose update regarding its significance beyond any other WC game.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunately, I feel that this just doesn't really have much lasting significance. Comparable other updates like North Korea's defeat of Italy in the 1966 World Cup and Algeria's defeat of West Germany in the 1982 World Cup don't have standalone articles, suggesting limited long-term notability. As slight a caveat to that, there is an article on the Disgrace of Gijón, but that merely manages Algeria's win as part of the background for said match. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * * Oppose, Snow Close Extremely minor match, not at all reported. <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ☎️ 📄 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A unique, beautiful and historic victory that made many people happy, but which, unfortunately, cannot go to ITN. But thank you so much for bringing it here and reminding us once again of this wonderful moment. :) MSN12102001 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Anyang factory fire

 * Support - Awful tragedy, notable enough for ITN. Article definitely needs expansion before it can go up, only four or five sentences atm. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is WAY too short for main page posting. Probably needs a 4x to 5x expansion to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason to believe this is anything other than a run of the mill tragedy. Even fires that engulf whole towns are relatively common and not immediately newsworthy. I'm not convinced this even meets event notability guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article is poor. Alex-h (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on event notability. However, oppose on article quality, needs to be lengthened & expanded before posting on ITN. SBS6577P (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article needs to be expanded thoroughly. Vida0007 (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but oppose on article quality. Nobody seems to be working on it.  Schwede 66  23:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy Lloyds

 * Support, although the "Role" field in the infobox should include his role during his playing career. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added "all-rounder" and his playing dates - Dumelow (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Earthquake in Java

 * Support, the article is already pretty substantial. --Tone 11:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems good, seems to have high enough death count. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of death toll & article quality. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks OK quality-wise, and fairly clear notability with supports above, so don't see a reason to hang around. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Impressive work on the article, so quickly after the disaster. Looks like a solid entry for ITN indeed. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support although I would have preferred leaving more time for discussion.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 15:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support  Major significance in the event, high casualties (162 dead according to BBC), self explanatory to put it in ITN SBS6577P (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed that this was obviously going to get posted. But also see the point about the speed with which it happened. Less than an hour from the nomination with only three supports is pretty fast for what is supposed to be a consensus oriented discussion open to the community. Anywho, no harm no foul. But in general, I think we should normally not post blurbs before the ink on the nomination is dry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, per WP:BURO. If the only rationale for waiting is to avoid making people unhappy they didn't get to contribute to the discussion, then that's a non-rationale.  WP:SNOW also applies to things that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of not being posted.  This was posted appropriately at the time it was posted.  It didn't have to wait.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was never any doubt that a disaster of this magnitude would meet the significance threshold. All that needed to be determined at that point was whether the article was of sufficient length and quality, and had been updated. That this was posted quickly was simply a confirmation that the boxes had been ticked. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Image request May we have an image to accompany the blurb? Discussion is still open so I thought this place could still hold request. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You should enquire on WP:ERRORS, though I'm not sure how much luck you'll have as the image doesn't look great at low resolutions. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sebastian Vettel retirement from Formula One

 * Oppose Consensus holds that we do not post sports retirements due to how ephemeral they tend to be. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  02:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sports retirements can be undone, hence why we do not post them. --M asem (t) 02:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if it was certain to remain, I don't think there's any sports retirement I'd support posting. Can't think of one athlete. Even MJ's retirement in 1993, I don't think. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Beyond concerns about posting or not posting retirements, I don't see Vettel's as big enough to merit posting. Maybe among active drivers Hamilton would be considered, but that is all, in my opinion. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm more open to posting sports retirements than others around here, but it really needs to be a Messi-level retirement, a "greatest ever in their sport" retirement, or at the very least the greatest of their generation, and that's Lewis Hamilton, not Vettel. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Who's he? STSC (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This type of comment is unhelpful. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- sports retirements can be reversed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the signifiance, even given his career achievenment. Suggest SNOW close. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a Vettel fan, this is really sad for me to say this, but I don't see how this is significant enough to be posted. Guys like Lewis Hamilton, you could make an argument, but Vettel isn't significant enough to be put on ITN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 Kazakh presidential election

 * Support altblurb - Typos need to be fixed, but notable event. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Presidential election, I would go with alternative blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrell410 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2022 November 20 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is orange-tagged for good reason; it needs extensive copy-editing. This is a big job because the page is huge.  But it doesn't actually have a section with the results, let alone prose about them.  To find out what actually happened, I looked at the news coverage.  There's nothing on my usual sources of BBC and NYT so I read the report on Al Jazeera which seems quite good.  The incumbent won by a landslide, of course, and it's amusing that the runner-up was "against everyone".
 * BTW, Al Jazeera also reports how the name change of the capital to Nursultan worked out. That was nominated in 2019 but we didn't run it.  Just as well, the name has recently been changed back to Astana.  "It holds the Guinness World Record for the city with the most name changes."
 * Andrew🐉(talk)


 * Oppose Article quality is poor, furthermore does not accurately reflect this is a sham election and in name only. Added alblurb3. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its worth noting that the OSCE didn't say that it was a sham election, nor did it record instances of voter suppression (as of the time of writing) - normally if elections are not free or fair, the OSCE would at least criticise how the elections were run - however OSCE's criticism for this election has been limited to lack of transparency of media ownership and how other candidates' campaigns were similar to (and indistinguishable from) Tokayev's. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Either altblurb 1 (with typos fixed) or altblurb 3. Notable presidential election that comes on the back of the 2022 Kazakh unrest earlier this year. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Any further issues here? The article looks exhaustive but I didn't read everything. --Tone 09:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The orange cleanup banner tag is still there right at the top. A results table has been added but no prose. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a yellow banner, which is in my view not problematic. As for the results prose, yes, this is missing. Tone 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The results have been added into the article; if there's no other concerns, the article can be posted. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a table at 2022 Kazakh presidential election, but still no prose discussing the results.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Bagumba, there is no write up prose summary of the results. This is especially worrying in this article, given that the entire page is already over-long at 75kb prose (well past the "probably should be broken up" threshold),suggesting balance issues. Not ready yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks well written. Kryptodypl (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mickey Kuhn

 * Support. Golden age actor, filmography is referenced. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 109th Grey Cup

 * Strong Support Article is well done and event is on WP:ITN/R. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The game summary was added and the annual Grey Cup game has historically been featured on "In the News". Cmm3 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jason David Frank

 * Support but wait Notable actor with a nice article, but wait until/if an actual death date is released. Cherrell410 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure that matters, the publication of his death was today, and that's what we usually go by. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a good quality article, many citations needed, and some early life details (like high school, for instance) are missing or out of place. And we may never get the exact date of death (especially if he died by suicide and was found later), and can go with date of announcement. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Orange tagged for more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many paragraphs without footnotes. Filmography is largely unsourced. MMA stats tables are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hebe de Bonafini

 * Support, in the plain list of RDs asap. No prohibitive lackings in the article for this. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article. Referencing is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Greg Bear

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many paragraphs and bullet-points with no footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) FIFA World Cup opening ceremony

 * We do not post the opening ceremony of the world cup - either its ongoing or the final result. M asem (t) 15:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We post the final result. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I know where all this fuss about the FIFA World Cup comes from, but it's not our business to navel-gaze it in every single accept. Wait until the winner is known in less than a month and post it then. There are much more significant things of earth-transforming nature happening, such as the conclusion of the UN Climate Change Conference. This is a long-awaited event for fun that garners the attention of billions of people, but it definitely won't change the world in any way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because it has a bigger global audience than any sporting event in the history of the universe. But I guess it's not the Superbowl or NCAA so it's meaningless to most of our readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing We do it for the Olympics, and the World Cup has a bigger global audience than that. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing - no blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Already covered in Ongoing. We will post the final result. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not on par with the Olympics opening ceremony. Also, this is a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference

 * Support once updated - An important and notable outcome, although it probably won't actually be implemented.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when updated per nom and Quantum, big event also, consensus to post was established last week. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  08:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article seems quite a mess with multiple orange tags, lots of future tense and no clear summary of what actually happened. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: More concise alt blurb proposed.  Sandstein   14:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. But we should mention that no agreement has been reached to get to 1.5 C. It's like visiting a patient in the hospital and reporting that according to the doctors, the kidneys of the patient have improved somewhat but failing to report that the overall condition of the patient has deteriorated to the point that the patient is not expected to survive. Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the 1.5C aspect was even on the table as a major point of discussions/negotiations. It is not our place to criticize the conference for not addressing that, and from what I've seen, its only been subjective criticism the conference didn't include that from RSes, which are things we don't include in ITN blurbs. M asem  (t) 14:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article needs to elaborate better what’s in the proposed blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality per above. In particular the issues surrounding the orange tags will need to be resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable outcome, notable event. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew Davidson and Ad Orientem 69.203.136.65 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated with a key outcome. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: FIFA World Cup

 * Support as there is precedent per nom. I'm not sure if the WP:ITN/R label is appropriate though, as I think it is only the final result that is ITN/R.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 08:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, ITN/R label removed. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  09:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support Gigantic sporting event lasting almost one month. Hundreds of car horns go off at night when I'm trying to sleep. My concerns are the nine citation needed tags. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 10:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t think anything other than the Olympics deserves a place in ongoing. The FIFA World Cup is a tournament in a single sport featuring national teams from only 32 countries that play to win a single set of medals. Ongoing exists as a practical tool for events that may require posting multiple blurbs, and it is more suited for events with multiple disciplines and thereby multiple sets of medals awarded on a daily basis. I don’t think that any game other than the final of this tournament would merit a blurb, so it’s better to wait until it ends and post the conclusion with the winning team. I’d say that even the world championships in athletics and swimming, whose formats allow participation by almost all countries and feature major developments every day, are a better fit. This has nothing to do with popularity but with the practical use of ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The World Cup was one of the events in mind when the Ongoing aspect was proposed. M asem (t) 13:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We used to post a sticky with an Olympic summary even before Ongoing was considered. Its introduction was inspired by a sticky posted for the Arab Spring.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The tournament is the culmination of a competition in which 206 national teams entered. Other than Olympics most watched sporting event. Of global interest, even for those who didn’t qualify. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant if it's watched by 4 billion people (I watch almost every match regularly, so what?). The point is that the format of this competition is incompatible with Ongoing. Unlike the Olympics, at which there are notable events with world records in different sports that would merit a blurb every day, the matches played at this tournament are chiefly qualifying events for the final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd rather we just post the final result.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sporting tournaments are ongoing by nature, but not in a manner that warrants posting as such. We'd get laughed out of the building if we proposed making the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament into an ongoing item. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The NCAA basketball tournament is like a mini-league, not a single (ongoing) event, and involves mid-tier amateur athletes of one country. It's nothing alike, of course it would SNOW quickly. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 64 teams play 1 game, the 32 winners play 1 game, the 16 winners play 1 game, the 8 winners play 1 game, the 4 winners play 1 game, the 2 winners play 1 game, lose at any time and can't even play anymore that year. Nothing like a league. Like the knockdown stage of the World Cup tournament but 4 times more teams. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So like the UEFA Champions League format once it's down to 16. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. ITN is not a sports ticker. Once the tournament is over, and assuming article quality is up to scratch, we can post the results. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - In my opinion an obvious Ongoing event. Of world importance, and with 3-4 billion viewers for the entire competition.BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - we should blurb that it has begun, per the Olympics (and the World Cup is a bigger event globally than the Olympics). Then roll down to Ongoing until the final result is known. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb per Amakuru. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support opening ceremony blurb then roll into ongoing per Amakuru. Significant global event, most popular sport in the world. The purpose of ITN is to signpost from the main page articles that people might be looking for because the subjects are in the news, I can't think this won't be highly-sought for the whole duration, not just start and end. And if true that it is a more-viewed event than the Olympics, which is of a similar duration and also global, I can only imagine opposes are because some users don't think association football is important. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Olmypics opening ceremony, there's little pomp or rationale for the World Cup version. Ongoing is good enough as there is no requirement that we must have a blurb before something is added to ongoing. M asem (t) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support important event --  lomrjyo  talk 16:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support at least Ongoing. Per Amakuru, the World Cup is a bigger event globally than the Olympics - couldn't have said it better myself. 69.203.136.65 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Olympics are covered in Ongoing because there is no final result. It has nothing to do with viewership. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per consistent precedents, the 2010, 2014 and 2018 World Cups were posted as ongoing:, , . Looks like its ongoing status is deeply rooted. Brandmeistertalk  18:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We do it for the Olympics, and the World Cup has a greater audience than that. No-brainer, really. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support... MSN12102001 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted ongoing. --Tone 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting, support pulling from ongoing and posting the final result. Also, fuck Qatar and FIFA. Bribery and corruption sucks. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the forum for your personal spin on FIFA.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is neither my nor personal nor spin, and even not any combination of those. It's universal knowledge. But thanks for notifying about WP:NOTFORUM. Anyways, I don't care. Have a nice day! a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are going to tell me to fuck off, then do so verbatim rather than couching it behind a sarcastic bluelink. Thank you. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominated ongoing for ITN/R.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Colorado Springs shooting

 * Support and wait the article needs more information to reflect on the latest updates of this controversy. Article also needs to be expanded as well. Sarrail  (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom. Mass shootings in the US are tragically so commonplace that posting any but the most extreme cases, with extremely high body counts, would turn ITN into an American crime blotter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This was a hate crime, giving it a distinction over other mass shootings that occur with similar casualty rates. I'm also not sure how you'd define extremely high body counts. Double digits? Triple digits? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the US? High double digits. We posted the Orlando night club shooting with near 50 killed. I think that was reasonable. Hate crime is neither here nor there. The lives lost here are no more sacred than the five people murdered last month in Raleigh NC. We are not here to promote causes, and special victims. See WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that a hate crime mass killing would raise it above the "commonplace." Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Ad Orientem wanted to know how this was not commonplace. I gave a reason. I'm not trying to right great wrongs. I'm explaining why this is different from other mass shootings that are not considered newsworthy. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate crimes= special causes/special victims= WP:RGW. Beyond which, no motive has been established per Masem, though that is a reasonable suspicion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If posting a shooting at a gay club is "RGW" (and I disagree with that, I think it makes it more newsworthy in keeping with the gay- and drag-panic from the Republican Party that has played out this year, with Libs of TikTok attacking the bar after the shooting), then what should we consider lumping two different shootings with different motivations and circumstances together when we should evaluate each separate situation independently? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this and concluded that if we exclude promoting special causes/people, there is nothing particularly significant about this in a country where mass shootings occur with greater frequency than my stopping at a gas station. Further, the death toll in this incident appears to be on the average side for American mass shootings. The issue is not motive. Every murder has a motive and every murder is appalling. The issue is commonality. You are of course, free to disagree. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we're at an impasse. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparing a shooting with no known motive to a shooting at an LGBT club that was scheduled to host a drag brunch tomorrow is a mistake. Not every mass shooting in the U.S. gets nominated, so we're in no risk of being overrun by these noms. We have to weigh their merits independently rather than just dismiss them if they're not "extreme". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * fwiw, motive has yet to be clearly established, though the Occum's Razor lineup of the situation would suggest that it is obviously a hate crime against the LGBTQ+ community. M asem (t) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The cause for pretty much every shooting rampage is the gunman's hatred for a certain group of people, be they co-workers, co-students, teachers, policemen, women, blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. I fail to see how this particular shooting becomes more noteworthy, just because the victims happened to be part of the LGBTQ+ community. By US standards the death toll is not that high and this is merely one more in a litany of similar cases, so it is safe to say that it will be forgotten quickly by anyone not directly affected. Lord Gøn (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad. Very unfortunate event, regardless. --Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Stub, low death count regardless. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending expansion Hate crimes are worth posting. Expansion beyond a stub is necessary though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait/Weak Support: The number of confirmed victims (deaths + injured) so far is 23, which surpasses the Buffalo supermarket shooting posted earlier this year. If confirmed to be motivated out of homophobic or conspiracy theory nonsense, then the motive more than make makes up for the "low" death toll. However, the article needs to be expanded before it can be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose commonplace event, wouldn't make the top 1000 global news events of the year. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. An Occam's Razor analysis of the shooting (at a queer nightclub that hosts drag brunches, on the eve of Transgender Day of Remembrance (which nobody upthread has brought up yet!) ) strongly suggests that it's a hate crime. Especially considering that far-right "news" sources, politicians, etc. in the US have become more vehemently anti-queer, leading to stochastic terrorism. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 19:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ETA: I'm pretty much in agreement with Muboshgu upthread. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 19:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused user:Crazytales. How is a trans person shooting up a queer nightclub on the eve of Transgender Day of Remembrance related to far-right anti-queer media outlets? Can you explain further the basis for your support here? Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: I agree that this being a hate crime raises its importance, that's not WP:RGW. Five dead and eighteen injured is not a low # anyway. —VersaceSpace (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 25 injured, according to the latest news updates. I'm not sure if that includes the gunman or not. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 20:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hate crime, racism, anti-LGBT sentiment, terrorism, the first ever shooting on a snowy Saturday in a night club located on the top of a hill overlooking a town with an electricity blackout and many more. These shootings in the US always have something “first” that makes them significant in any way. However, this is just another shooting in a country where the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. It’s like considering a deadly car accident in a country where driving a car is legal. I don’t know what else to say. Full stop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ... we post car crashes on occasion, and not just ones in the small handful of jurisdictions where cars are illegal. The legality of the instruments used isn't really relevant to anythng, other than to trying to make political points. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. We post car accidents in which a bus crashes and more than 50 people die. This isn’t that equivalent. The (il)legality is key to prevent (or at least mitigate) all this. Just call me when a law introducing gun controls will be passed and you’ve got my support. And, like it or not, this has nothing to do with politics. It’s just what it is in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. It's a sad state of affairs, but this is common now. The motives of the shooting is not important.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and.... All the same reasons as others, plus, we don't know if it's a hate crime. The article explicitly says we don't know. So using that as an argument for posting doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever the outcome of this nomination is, I'm a little more than thrilled that the discussion at least seems to be proceeding more civilly than with any of our previous nominations of this type. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Random crimes are not inherently significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment  In order to make the item more accessible to all readers, the blurb should mention the country where this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting since this is a hate crime. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "This is a hate crime" No source on that so far. Tube·of·Light 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. Tube·of·Light 01:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral (I changed my opinion after seeing Tamzin and Silent-Rains' rationales). Tube·of·Light 04:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Mass shootings of this scale are, yes, sadly common in the U.S. But if the question is whether this is commonplace, per History of violence against LGBT people in the United States it looks like the last incident of this nature was the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. In that case, disagreement remains whether the motive was to target gay people, but in either event, mass shootings targeting gay nightclubs in the U.S. are a) rare and b) have a resonating effect in the U.S. LGBQ community (a community larger than the populations of many countries and the fanbases of many sports), as extensively documented regarding the Orlando shooting. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As of now, it is the top story on BBC News, The Associated Press, ABC News, National Public Radio, CNN, NBC News, Inside Edition, The Washington Post, New York Times, The Washington Examiner, PBS News, Vox, TIME, USA Today, LA Times, The Guardian, Newsweek, Independent, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Yahoo News, & plenty of other media outlets. Silent-Rains (Talk) 04:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, 90% of the outlets you mentioned are American, so they would focus on an American mass shooting. AryKun (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those were just the media outlets that came to my mind first (i.e major news websites). I also only listed news sites where the shooting was the top story. In many foreign media outlets, the top story is the FIFA World cup (which is in ongoing) but the shooting is still on their front pages. I have also found that this has received international attention. Here are news reports in Russian, Spanish, Newbrew, Thai, & Bulgarian. The Wikipedia article itself has versions in French, Hebrew, & Russian - meaning it has likely gotten significant attention in countries that speak those languages. Silent-Rains (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many media outlets "foreign" to the USA customise their content for the location of the reader, so seeing this in sites like the BBC from within the USA doesn't prove much at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * International notability doesn't have to be proven. All that needs to be proven is that the item is significant and newsworthy. No qualifiers. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support — Readers should be informed about this sort of mass killing typically happened in the U.S. – STSC (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The attack took place during a commemoration of the Trans Day of Remembrance memorializing the trans people killed during the year. It was also during a drag show. Drag events have had an increase of threats and violence and children’s hospitals have faced bomb threats in the past year for providing transgender healthcare for children. I also think 25 injured is notable. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - no, this is not a common occurrence, and the reflexive dismissal of it as though it were should be disregarded. Mass casualty hate crimes are not common in the United States. And thats why its in the news across the world. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's a hate crime is speculation at this point, as we don't know the shooter's motives. Endwise (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Formal hate crime charges have been brought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is important to publicize. Right-wing terrorism is escalating in the United States. This is a notable event on the Trans Day of Remembrance. The number killed is almost identical to the bombing in Istanbul already featured on the front page. This event should be included.73.229.27.91 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who has decided it's right wing terrorism? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It very clearly is. It's not a high bar to pass.
 * It is even being investigated as a hate crime - a step further than simply being right-wing terrorism. 73.229.27.91 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He has been charged with 5 counts of murder, and 5 counts of 'committing a bias-motivated crime causing bodily injury'.
 * The event fits the criteria for right-wing terrorism as it's defined in that page. 73.229.27.91 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Elijah, TRM and Kiril. Horrendous, but it’s a sad routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shootings seem common in Colorado Springs, let alone the entire USA – there were several reported in recent weeks. And notice that Colorado Springs shooting is a disambiguation page with numerous entries. And that's not including Columbine which is nearby. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * War in Europe is a disambiguation page, I suggest we no longer consider ethnic conflicts or just general violence in Europe for this page as it is sadly a regular occurence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * War in Europe is not a disambiguation page; it's a redirect to a list. For 2022, that list just has the war in Ukraine and 2022 Corsica unrest.  The latter was nominated at ITN but not posted.  An even better European example is the recent 2022 Bratislava shooting – quite a similar event which was not posted at ITN.  So, we see that similar low-level violence in Europe is not posted at ITN too. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tamzin. Occam's Razor would indicate this is a hate crime. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor is just a type of best guess but, per WP:OR, we don't do guesswork here. What the relevant guideline, WP:CRIME, says is "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On ITN/C, we're forced to make a determination within 7 days (sometimes less) as to how significant an item is based on the facts available at the time. Of course, the investigation has not yet been completed, and it may take time before the shooter's intentions and motives become public knowledge. But since an ITN item becomes stale once it rolls past the 7-day mark, we have to make a judgment call, partially based on the circumstances surrounding the case. The circumstances are particularly stark in this shooting. Also, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable here since the living person is not actually named in the nomination. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for comparison, the perpetrator of the Orlando nightclub shooting was actually motivated by his hatred of the United States/US imperialism, and initial speculation about his intent to target a gay nightclub was actually incorrect. We can't just "Occam's razor" our way into believing it a hate crime; Wikipedia should not engage in this kind of speculation. Endwise (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OR prohibits using original research in article content. Period. "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."  It has absolutely nothing to do with ITN yes/no decisions.  (Similarly, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RGW are just as irrelevant on this page.  Heck, WP:NPOV doesn't apply here either.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.40.241 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably US gun murders should be put into ongoing once and for all. 128.91.40.241 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all murders by firearm are the same, and the tut-tutting above about "where it is constitutionally protected" belongs on a blog, not here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article meets main page standards, is being covered appropriately by news sources to demonstrate that it is a story in the news. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * now charged as a hate crime, altblurb suggested. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep; just saw that come through the NY Times. Unfortunately, the court records related to the prosecution will be sealed, so although they are charging this as a hate crime, we won't see the actual evidence that leads them to believe they have a case. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The media has done rather a thorough job to point out all the red flags the suspect has to leave little doubt why it was a hate crime. That said for here the key is that he has been formally charged with it, and while a jury may find him not guilty of the hate crime aspect, the prosecution is going into this with that assertion. M asem (t) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. The prosecution wouldn't press such a case if they felt they didn't have a chance of winning a conviction on those grounds, particularly if the evidence in this case is sealed. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As per Jayron32's comment above, this article checks all the boxes. It has also become (arguably) the biggest headline right now apart from the ongoing World Cup and the recent earthquake in Indonesia. Vida0007 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's been 36 hours, and this story is still on the front page of BBC (and 3rd in "Top Stories" at the time of writing) despite the World Cup. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Deaths of 20 people in Mexico or 100 in Africa don't make the front page, which is already too America-centric. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't nominate these, we can't consider them. M asem (t) 13:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This crime has quite reasonably attracted a lot of media attention as a hate crime with several victims. There's a lot of whataboutery in many of the oppose !votes. It's not attempting to Right Great Wrongs to observe that a newsworthy thing is newsworthy for more than just the death toll. Let's not try to use WP policy as a tool to beat down stories about the oppression of minorities. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major story, article is of sufficient quality. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important story and article is much better now compared to earlier edits Ppt91 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly below the death threshold for a US mass shooting. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While, User:WaltCip there may not be a hard number, it's below the death threshold for a Denver mass shooting - let alone the State of Colorado or that entire country. There were three bigger shootings in that locality in the last 20 months. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the argument put forward by Kiril. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would agree that if this is a hate crime, it would put it beyond routine mass shootings in the US. But this has not been established (charges are not it) and newer reports indicate other motivations. Considering the (fortunately) low death count and unclear motive as to the existence of a hate crime I am opposing this. Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a shooting in the USA and only 5 dead? I'm sorry, is this notable because the death toll is so low? The choice of Americans to not have gun control makes this a regular occurrence - and yes, more than once a year is a regular occurrence. Good grief, there have been 3 bigger shootings in the Denver area in the last 20 months! Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:MINIMUMDEATHS doesn't seem to exist. You're ignoring what makes this shooting notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything User:Muboshgu that makes it notable. What do you see is notable about it? There seems to be claims it's a hate crime - but I don't see any evidence for that. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tuan Tuan

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still quite a few footnote-deficient paragraphs in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

2021 Rugby League World Cup (delayed to 2022)

 * Support, just. The singular main article has had table updates, the non-bold links to the event tournaments have had more update (tables and lead text). As we typically post the finals, once there is an article for the women's final (wheelchair has one, too!), perhaps the "tournament" words and links can be changed to "final". Per ITN talk discussion, I am satisfied that the whole World Cup is ITN/R. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The event tournaments have no prose about the updated content as per WP:ITNCRIT (i.e. content about the finals), whilst the main article does. Final articles have both been bolded or left out at different times and there is no WP:ITNSPORTS guidance on this except that . Tennis very rarely has separate final articles and I think given the similar men/women/multiple winners in this item it works better without going overkill with the bold links. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to say I had seen no prose update at the main article, but now I see it's at the top of the tournament sections. It's also more editorial in tone than I'd like. Perhaps spreading the prose through the relevant stages of each tournament, and making it "blander" for want of a better word, could help if you don't want to link finals. FWIW, I was not suggesting bolding them, just replacing the "Australia wins the men's tournament" with "Australia wins the men's final" etc., if you're just worried about bold links. Not that three bold links is more than we've had in one blurb before. Kingsif (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think spreading the updated content to the relevant stage in the subsection (e.g. knockout stage) only moves anything from the top of the section to the bottom (which isn't that far apart anyway) and changes its structure from prose–>tables to prose–>tables–>prose, but I'm indifferent to it. It's not an awful lot of prose and just provides more descriptive detail about the tables that will follow. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above Cherrell410 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support top-level international tournament. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ready. The organisation of the article is such that when I click the section to read about the final I get see no prose at all and have to go hunting for it elsewhere. Also, the list of broadcasters table has huge swathes just marked "TBA" which should not be the case after the event has concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * wrote something about the organisation of the prose and not linking the finals articles instead a few comments above. Guess he'll also have some insight about the TBA's? Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry @Thryduulf, I don't follow. There is no clickable "final" subsection for the tournaments in question. There is a knock-out phase section which is the closest thing to it and just above it in the prose under the tournament headers there is prose for the final which constitutes basically the majority of the section. After checking, there are three "TBA"s out of thirteen (hardly swathes) in the broadcasting section. I'll now fix it or just remove it if there are no updates not that I think it is detrimental to the ITN/Criteria. None of these issues raised seems to effect ITN/C and are just styling/general article improvement issues that any editor may wish to quickly fix themselves. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I follow the link to the bolded article, look at the TOC, see the apparently most relevant section is called "knockout stage", click on it and all I see is a table, so I scroll up and see more tables and then a block of prose about the whole competition that I have to look through to find information about the final - I shouldn't have to go hunting. It isn't a "styling" issue but an article layout issue and not being able to find prose about the finale where nearly two decades of reading Wikipedia articles has taught me to look for prose about the finals is significant enough for me to stand-by my opposition. The TBAs, while not a reason to oppose on their own, did need improving and while there may only have been three they represented by far the greatest amount of screen estate in that column. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We typically link these types of sports blurbs to a page that details the finals (e.g. 2021 Women's Rugby League World Cup Final). Currently, the finals details are strangely more in the top-level 2021 Rugby League World Cup, while that page lacks much overview of the overall tourney, aside from tables.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tariq Teddy

 * Oppose. The prose is stubby and the "Stage shows" and "Films" sections are entirely unsourced (and as the latter contains only a single entry I am not convinced it needs to be its own section anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No improvements over the past five days. --PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Malaysian general election

 * Wait It would seem wise to wait until the results of the election come out before posting blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Editor 5426387 2A00:23C8:B03:9F01:581D:EC3D:869C:F2CE (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All results have been declared (apart from the 2 seats where the election was postponed). I updated the article's infobox and lead, and added an alternative blurb to indicate a milestone. Pizza1016 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently there are still unpredictable outcomes with coalition governments not being formed right now. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Major update - Press statements from the King of Malaysia today have confirmed Anwar Ibrahim's appointment as the new prime minister of Malaysia after convening several Malay sultans. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All election results have been 99% officially announced, and the new PM has been officially sworn in. Chongkian (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The target article is well cited and gives a good overview of the election. Seems a little overdue of ITN, maybe we should put an (attention needed) notif --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A significant election result for a country, as a hung parliament now indicates political competitiveness in what was practically was single-party rule for decades. Anwar being appointed PM is also a major chapter in Malaysian politics. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been updated to account for the noteworthy election result and the formation of the new Malaysian government. Here's hoping for a better Malaysia that excels under Anwar's policies. JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated alt blurb. I prefer this one over the proposed one. Pizza1016 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Considering the significance of this event in the region as well as Anwar's own struggles, it really suits. Ricky250 (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * - admins can you take a look at this for posting? Thanks!  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Did not pipe Pakatan Harapan to Alliance of Hope, as the election page did not either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dwight Garner (American football)

 * Support. Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments: There are {cn} tags for the subject's date and place of birth. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: Tags resolved. —Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Bagumba. --PFHLai (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Leap seconds abolished

 * Support This affects UTC which we see used all over Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant change to global timekeeping. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A plus for poor programming. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Caution: for a start the proposed wording is terrible ("preclude the addition" ???). But more importantly, are we sure that (a) the 2135 date is correct [other sources don't mention it] and (b) that the decision is the last word (Nature doesn't think so.) BTW, do we show the source? because the NYT requires a subscription. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The process is ad hoc because it's based on observations. There hasn't been a leap second for a while because the Earth is currently running fast and it seems they don't want to remove a leap second from UTC because it has not been done before and is technically problematic.  Note that the word "addition" should not be used in the blurb for this reason as there might be subtraction too. Andrew🐉(talk)


 * Oppose – Article not sufficiently updated. "2135" is not even mentioned in it! Not ready. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits. Maybe not huge news, but does seem to be notable and would provide some welcome variety. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The update to the article is barely two sentences and doesn't support the headline. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting news of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: unripe. This is just a proposal. Let's wait until 2026 to see if there is sufficient support to actually do anything. John Sauter (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't mention 2135 in the article and the update is insufficient. To be honest I'm not sure if it's really ITN material anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As with the rontograms discussed elsewhere, this is an unremarkable policy decision, not a scientific discovery. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

(ATTENTION needed!) RD: Tabassum

 * The sentence about her name needs clarification, but other than that it's in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That line about her names is now a blockquote. Does this help? Maybe we don't need to explain any further now that it's a quote verbatim, i hope. -- PFHLai (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry folks, I was out for a bit. Looks good based on PFHLai's edits. Can an admin help take a look and post? Ktin (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, time for a (late) re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ned Rorem

 * Refs should be all good now.  Aza24  (talk)   10:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) LATAM Perú Flight 2213

 * Comment and Support. It is the first hull loss of the Airbus A320neo since its intruduction in January 2016. Additionally, the accident is getting global media attention for its unusual crash. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 10:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Minor accident PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The two killed are from the fire truck. All on board survived which is probably why I haven't seen this in major news outlets. Brandmeistertalk  13:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a major incident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Fairly minor, bordering on trivial, aviation accident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aviation accidents generally aren't notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it's not meeting the requirements of ITN.  Schwede 66  00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively minor in ITN terms. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled) New metric prefixes

 * Support. Significant in math and science. Per the source: It marks the first time in more than three decades that new prefixes have been added to the International System of Units. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Where is the update in prose? All there is are updates to the tables to include these. --M asem (t) 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The nomination didn't have much news coverage so I've added some sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Wow. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent news of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is woefully under cited - Dumelow (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above, and a nice change of pace  PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Support in principle. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once improved per above.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Purely administrative change. (Article prose is also very lacking, but I oppose this in any case.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Literal definition of semantics. What actual impact does this have. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The metric system bureau wants to immunize against one of the unofficial ones like a "brontobyte" (brontosaurus dinosaur) and a hellabyte (a hell of a lot of bytes, "hella" is also a common slang in parts of West USA meaning "very") from becoming too popular to stop. In 2026 ~221 zettabytes (0.221 yottabytes) of data will be created so it might be a quarter ronnabytes and 2 ronnabits per year by 2046 (if technological singularity doesn't happen) so companias are going to start to want a prefix bigger than yotta soon for long-term plans. They should've picked better ones: Quetta is a city and ronna is ugly: it's a first name like Sue, it looks like 'rona (coronavirus), it doesn't look enough like the Latin or Greek for 9 that it's derived from (to ease memory, as almost anyone interested in STEM knows what the Latin and Greek words for small counting numbers mean) and they could've called it xenna- and xento- instead which would fit the memory-aiding trends better: (xennabit=10009 (ennea=Greek for 9), yottabit (okto=Greek for 8), zettabit (hepta=Greek for 7), exabit (hex=Greek for 6), petabit (pente=Greek for 5), terabit (tettares=Greek for 4, teras=Greek for monster) gigabit (gigas=Greek for giant), megabit (megas=Greek for big), then some that end in the wrong vowel cause they're literally thousand, thousandth etc in Greek and Latin, then i.e. microgram (mikros=Greek for small), nanogram (nanos=Greek for dwarf), picogram (pico=Spanish for speck), femtogram (femten=Danish for 15 (10-15)), attogram (atten=Danish for 18), zeptogram, yoctogram, xennogram (still heavier than an electron, though not by much. Neutrinos are much lighter). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * X was rejected for use because it looks too much like the multiplication sign. Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Per above. High encyclopaedic value. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's 'encyclopedic' in the sense that encyclopedias will use these terms. It's not actually news in its own right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Really significant. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important. Cherrell410 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as referencing isn't up to scratch. Support in principle.  Schwede 66  00:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support But few people use anything smaller than femto and anything larger than terra. The whole point of the scientific notation is to avoid having to go down this route. You don't want the way numbers are represented to become unnecessarily complex e.g. like they are in the Finnish language. Count Iblis (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If they feel it's gone too far one proposal I've seen is to remove the rule that banned micromicrofarad (pico was invented partly cause farads are huge even now and micromicrofarad was practical size even then). So one day we might reach quectoquectobytes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean quettaquettabytes? :) Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any significance in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this changes textbooks around the world. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Highly significant. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Opppose Agree with others that I don't see how this is actually significant to the avg person or affects anyone, except people who work specifically in metrology. Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Really fun headline! Article currently does not describe this change in text in any way. Not ready for ITN, as readers can't learn any more about the process; about what actually changed and why. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still no update to the article. A "History" section might serve this article well, if I may suggest larger content changes here. I will also note that currently, most of the article is completely unsourced. The lack of citations makes it an awkward front-page subject. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The article as it stands now doesn't make me excited, but at least the blurb is explained in the text of the article now. Can definitely use more work, but I'd like to see this blurb on the front page.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and a nice change from the usual parade of politics, sports, and disasters that we get on the front page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as this only happens once in a few decades. The target article may be changed for the sake of posting this to ITN. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Not only has this happened once in a few decades, it will likely never happen again, as after these recognitions every Latin letter is now in use to represent a unit or a prefix. I added a paragraph at Metric prefix. Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. Great update, thanks!--Tone 11:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull. Article is still highly undercited, as noted by Dumelow on the INT talk page. For example, the section "Application to units of measurement" only has a few citations. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled Article is tagged for a lack of sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sentencing of Elizabeth Holmes

 * Oppose Certainly far from being an ITNR-worthy case. Low international coverage, low national impact, very low international impact. And, above all, the "legacy" it can generate is very, very low. Far from having the level of the sentences for the murder of George Floyd or the Catalan independence leaders (I don’t remember other sentences that were posted). _-_Alsor (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I'm generally a proponent for posting more blurbs, I concur that this isn't even the one of the top 3 biggest stories of the day in the US (Pelosi, Garland, Twitter, and FTX top that). Curbon7 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is a notable case. More than 11 years in prison for a white collar crime is unusual. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - incredibly niche. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The time to post this would have been at conviction.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is only significant to a small handful of people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose per above. Crimes are rarely posted. Sentencing is almost never. There is nothing here that justifies a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Even if crimes are rarely posted, that is not a justification to not post this one. However, even though this story has been covered for years in the media, it doesn't really have a big enough impact to be ITN-worthy (I'd say it's the biggest business-crime-related story of the year that isn't blurb-worthy). Tube·of·Light 02:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Rafi Usmani

 * Support Could use a little light copy-editing for smoothness, but the article is decently referenced and adequate in both length and overall quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem. Thanks for the advice. I'm already doing some bits and I feel I will also reformat the sources to Sfn for consistency but it is time consuming. I will take care of it in morning. Best, ─ The Aafī   (talk)  18:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  –MinisterOfReligion   (Talk) 06:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The infobox mentions that the subject was the 3rd President and 2nd Mufti of Darul Uloom Karachi with specific dates in office. The infobox mentions his nephew, too. Such information should be in the prose as well, with references. --PFHLai (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai, one of these three things is sourced. Lemme fix it very soon. Thanks for the note. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  06:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai, I feel this is sorted for now. I couldn't find any immediate source for his being the second Mufti, and removed the name of his nephew from the infobox as I do not feel to add a family life section at the moment. Perhaps, sometime later. Everything else is ready. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  06:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing, @AafiOnMobile. Can the dates in office as the 3rd President shown in the infobox be verified, please? -- PFHLai (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai, I feel not now because there exist no detailed biographies of him yet. What is verified that his predecessor served the post until his death, and was then succeeded by Rafi Usmani as the third president, and he served on this post until his death on 18 November 2022. We can just add a hidden note inside that this is how the dates have been calculated? ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  06:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @AafiOnMobile, I have removed the date from the infobox for now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the "start" date. -- PFHLai (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help @PFHLai. You've always been a helpful person even during my last ITN nominations. I hope to search about these dates but I've internal examinations at the university tomorrow. The page has also received good page views (20k+) in the last two days. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  08:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, TheAafi. Glad that I could be useful. Thank you for working on this wikibio. All the best to your exams. Cheers! -- PFHLai (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Gaza fire

 * Support - Article needs expansion, only three paragraphs, but the event is notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per recent talk. This seems to be a minor news item which is less prominent than numerous other current stories (Qatar, Twitter, UK budget, &c.)  We should not give it undue weight just because there's a death toll.  For another fire, see Iran.
 * Note also that this happened in Palestine but the nominating account only has 229 edits and the first supporter only has 123 edits. I'm not sure of the exact EC constraints in such cases but it's another reason for caution. See other recent talk.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, ARBPIA doesn't extend to discussions external to the articles themselves, though it may be a good idea to issue the standard notice. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would apply, but I see nothing conflict related in the article. Internal Palestinian or internal Israeli topics are not by default Arab-Israeli conflict topics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does my edit count particularily matter in this? I based my decision off of precedent, which is that similar sized disasters have been posted before. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some topics such as Israel/Palestine are restricted in this way -- see recent discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The restriction is on topics related broadly to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, not all topics related to Israel or Palestine. As there's clearly no Israel involvement here, this is just an event that relates to Palestine only and thus is not restricted by the ARBCOM case. M asem (t) 19:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just one correction, it is applied to the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, of which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a (major) component, but the rest of this is spot on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, this fire was due to large quantities of gasoline being stored in the house. That's something that's illegal here in the UK because it's a fire hazard.  The reason this is done in Gaza is because many households have to run their own generator.  The reason this is done is because the electrical grid is unreliable.  And that's because Israel has been keeping Gaza under siege since Hamas took over.  Right?  So, if it wasn't for the conflict, the fire would not have happened.  So, that's a connection and the policy is so broadly construed that the article Gaza Strip, where this happened, is subject to ECP, along with Blockade of the Gaza Strip, History of the Palestinians, Governance of the Gaza Strip, &c. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, internal Palestinian and internal Israeli topics are not related to the conflict. If you have to take that many leaps then no it is not in the ARBPIA topic area anymore than it is related to Adam and Eve. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The governments of Gaza and Israel don't agree, "Officials from Hamas, the militant group that runs Gaza, pinned the blame for the deaths on Israel’s 15-year blockade imposed on the coastal enclave, which has banned the import of certain equipment and machinery, hobbling the capability of emergency responders. ... Israel’s civil administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel’s presence in the occupied territories, including Gaza and the West Bank, said Hamas’ accusation was an effort to evade responsibility. Rather than establishing civil and medical infrastructure in Gaza, Hamas “has invested its resources in strengthening itself militarily in order to manufacture rockets and missiles which it launches at innocent Israeli civilian populations,” the administration said in a statement."NYT Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, I think this is a loose connection, rather than an explicit part of the conflict. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of the new editors, they should understand that the sanction is "broadly construed", which means that "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case ... that is normally taken to mean that it does". So, it's safest to assume the worst. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do get your point, and that this conversation is being had with good faith, but I just don't see how this article is controversial. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding an uninvolved-in-the-area comment that I also think it is clear this is not ARBPIA-related, to try to tamp out that issue so the discussion can center on support/oppose. No opinion about whether to put it in ITN or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though? It was an isolated fire. I get why posts like these would be locked to newcomers, but I don't see how this subject is controversial in any way. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia where editors can and do argue about anything. The classic example in this context is hummus (right), which is subject to WP:ARBPIA too. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except nobody is arguing this but you, and two uninvolved admins have both said this is not in the conflict. Its literally you saying one thing, and every other person who has commented saying the opposite. Its not in the topic, it does not have a talk page notice, it is not extended confirmed, it does not have an edit notice. You can keep bringing up other articles that have (portions) of them in the topic area, but there is wide agreement that this one is not. I believe we call that consensus on Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once updated - This is significant enough. The answer to lack of coverage of "bad news" stories is not to stop posting those stories. The answer is to go out and nominate those other events you feel are newsworthy and meritorious. It's pointless to try and alter our general criteria based on one-off complaints, because someone is always going to find a reason to complain about something. Too much sports, too many award shows, not enough coverage of wars or disasters in other countries. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an NEVENT factor here. This is a domestic fire started by the owners storing gasoline in their home. Tragic but avoidable and unlikely to lead to long-term coverage. Contrast this to the Grenfell Tower fire where the rapidness of the first was quickly pinned on how the building was constructed, and thus has had long-term effects (investigation, lawsuits, etc.) That clearly passes NEVENT. M asem (t) 16:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but my counter-argument is that this is an underrepresented region on ITN, and any efforts we can make at combating systemic bias is worthwhile, even if in this case it's a disaster or tragedy. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree we want to avoid systematic bias, but that should not be at the cost of accepting poor quality or less significant news items that just happen to get a burst of coverage. Not trying to evoke "don't complain about being in one country", but if this exact same event happened in the US or UK, it might get a larger burst of coverage but wouldn't be news we post due to accidental house fires being very common. M asem (t) 22:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now – Subject is promising, but the article is not of sufficient quality for ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Currently, the article is a stub, so it doesn't qualify. As far as notability, I'm on the fence as to whether it warrants inclusion for ITN. Is there a reason why this is a major event rather than just a run-of-the-mill tragedy? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it was written about in all major outlets - BBC, Washington Post , Reuters , Al Jazeera . Kirill C1 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article explains in the popular culture section why hummus is such a contentious topic. This doesn't apply here. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That article only has 'confirmed' protection, not 'extended confirmed' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't post stubs; unless someone is interested in expanding this, it's a non-starter.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Brooks

 * Support Everything looks to be cited. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Staughton Lynd

 * Oppose I've added several cn templates, and most of the Works section is unverified. Also, is there anyway we could cut down on the number of descriptors in the first sentence, it is comically long. Curbon7 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose So many citation issues. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Azio Corghi
We have a newspaper ref now for his death, only I can't access it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Corriere della Sera (in Italian): "Morto Azio Corghi, da Torino alla Scala alla collaborazione con Saramago: addio al compositore e musicologo" I can access. Grimes2 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I found another news, accessible and detailed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shettima Mustafa

 * Comment Lede needs some work, but the prose and sourcing appear to be fine. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking Curbon7, I've expanded the lead a bit - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. All in good shape now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Gerson

 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Short but well-sourced. Vida0007 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Aleksandr Gorshkov (figure skater)

 * Not Quite Ready The table in the results section is unsourced. Otherwise, should be ready for posting once that's fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not ready. The results section has not been sourced yet. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carolina Ödman-Govender

 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in a good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed birth date, because there are no sources for it. Grimes2 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The stated death date (and place) is unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to the Cape Argus, a local newspaper. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Modest Genius: That source says she died in the "early hours of Tuesday morning." Shouldnt the date be the 15th then? —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, 15th, fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There must be a source for at least the year of birth, surely. The article has to include basic biographical information like how old she was. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Cape Argus source: "passed away at the age of 48". This means 1973 or 1974. Grimes2 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled) United States House and Senate Elections

 * Support blurb for obvious reasons. Interstellarity (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - I have added an altblurb suggestion, leaving out the stale Senate news. Jusdafax (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We already gave the US Senate elections a blurb, it has since cycled off, so don't think we should repost that old news. — xaosflux  Talk 02:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than blurbing Truss's resignation and then bumping Sunak's ascension? Or are you saying that you think we should only blurb the news regarding the House? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 I'm just saying we shouldn't re-blurb the 2022_United_States_Senate_elections which have already been blurbed and fell off naturally due to other non-US congress related events. So perhaps one of the altblurbs is better. — xaosflux  Talk 02:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Obviously.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 12:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb II - Already blurbed the senate a few days ago. Apart from that, obviously notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted altblurb II. Sam Walton (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sam 2A00:23C8:B03:9F01:909C:632A:B4A:7D63 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A bit surprised this was posted as is. The first section "Results" is currently very confusing, showing the Democrats having won 222 seats (ie. the results of 2020). I doubt this would have been posted as is if it was related to elections in another country.... (NB: I'm not discussing the notability - of course this should be posted asap - but a modicum of quality would be nice...) Khuft (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true. Pull for having no prose update. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's yet no final count, only that the GOP got at least 217 to control the House. The rest of that information can't be filled until the remaining counts are done which could take weeks given how close some of these are. M asem (t) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN and other outlets today announced the Republican win of the House. If the vote counting is still ongoing, this may look like an unassailable lead which we do post elsewhere. Brandmeistertalk  11:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I (can't speak for other people) am not looking for the final results. I am looking for a prose update which this article lacks. Pull. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you asking for? The second sentence provides what you're looking for. "The Republican Party won a majority of seats and will serve as the majority party in the House of Representatives in the 118th United States Congress." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not an update we're accustomed to here. Pull. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? That IS the prose update. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull In addition to the issues noted above by Khuft and Howard the Duck, the results section (at the time of writing) is completely unsourced, and the only data provided is 222 seats for the Democrats in 2020, and 213 seats for the Republicans in 2020. Chrisclear (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled as the results section has no prose and the data table is near-empty and unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason the table is empty is because we still don't have final results of some elections. The prose appears earlier in the article. M asem (t) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore immediately, one editor says pull and that trumps the consensus here and WP:ITNR? Seriously, how is this ok? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I didn't call for a pull, quality is important even for ITNR nominations (as argued for basically every other election, most of which end up languishing in ITN purgatory). When I commented, the Results section was not just empty, it was plainly misleading, with a huge bar chart showing 222 Dem delegates and no mention that this referred to 2020. This fortunately was removed since. The page in itself is very detailed, and certainly very complete, but the one section I care about as non-American who will not dig into the individual results in, say, Oregon, I found the one section I would be interested in (Results) to be oddly lacking and uninfomative. Of course, the full results will only be known when the counting is completed, but some prose about where we currently stand would be welcome. Khuft (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ive removed the table (or hidden), and added some prose. This should be restored. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse pull. I didn't check thus before, but per the above, The article quality is lacking at the moment. As well as prose lacking as above, there are some dubious looking sections such as "Open seats that parties held" which don't seem that useful and uncited too. Needs some significant improvement I would say. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore immediately. I do not see any consensus for a pull. This was a bad, bad decision. The article is more than fine. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pull per Amakuru. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly needs to be added to the article. What non-subjective (eg doesnt seem that useful) criteria needs to be met? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer is nothing. There's a different standard for American articles, apparently. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To get on ITN with the bolded link, the article needs to be well updated. A near-empty results table is not good enough, no matter if it's American or related to any other country. Having an orange tag for sourcing problems is another reason to not have this on ITN. Please fix the article. --PFHLai (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The results are not final yet. That is why there is no results table. The news however is that the House of Representatives has a new Republican majority. That is already there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't add results -- they're not final yet. All we know is that the GOP will have a majority in the House. That's the important thing. There's nothing to fix on the article. This pull should really be reverted. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The wikipage is also orange-tagged for inadequate sourcing. The "Open seats that changed parties" section and the several sections after that have very few footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, because this quality of article is so clearly better than the quality of the ITN/R article that it belonged on the front page within minutes of the announced resignation of the PM of the Western world's least stable plutocracy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any difference between that article and the one that was just pulled in terms of quality. Hopefully this gets restored soon. I don't think calling the UK government a "plutocracy" helps things though. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Can this please be restored? The article was fine and should not have been pulled from ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the issues mentioned above have been resolved yet, so it can't be reposted until that's done. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure it can, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, WP:ITN is not. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN operates as a de facto guideline, much like Articles for deletion doesn't have any formal policy or guideline designation. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore - consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of this being posted/reposted, and the opinions of a couple editors should not override said consensus. Enough of this "it's not good enough for the main page in my opinion, which outweighs the consensus to post" - Floydian τ ¢ 17:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The wikipage is still for inadequate sourcing. Please add more footnotes to the "Open seats that changed parties" section and the several sections after that. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can this be restored before it becomes stale? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, as the sources for each empty seat is in the article on the seat. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when can articles get sourced through other articles? Tht is not how it works, or is it? 91.96.162.209 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose restore  Article body lacks a sourced summary of the results. There used to be this placeholder table; need either that or some equivalent.  Readers should not have to go to each 50 states' individual sections to assess the high-level results.  The article lead doesn't even mention the final seat count in prose, either.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have the final seat count. All we know is that the Republicans have the majority. We won't know what the final count is for weeks. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, one user opposes because of an empty results table, another opposes because it lacks an empty results table. We dont have a final seat count yet, sheesh. But sure, restored the empty table. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not fill the table, with the leading and elected numbers - which is what I've always seen done for other countries. Or add a column for "To Come"? Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But the infobox shows unsourced number of wins. Consistently inconsistent.  Definitely not fit for MP yet. —Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox shows the current called races. The blurb is that the Republican Party has taken the house. It is absurd that we are not blurbing the general election results, even if we dont have a final count, already. We blurbed Likud winning before we knew how many seats, or coalition composition or anything. We blurb when we know the result, not when we know the final seat count. Consider me shocked, shocked I say, to see that ITN has once again proven its consistent inconsistency with respect to news about the US. Elections in wherever? Sure, no problem, race to the main page. Elections in the US? Oh deary no, cant have that, the colonies are allowed to vote? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't say I disagree. US elections are held to ridiculously higher standards for ITN compared to anywhere else. Not to mention that we blurbed Truss' resignation and Sunak's election and bumped the blurb up. It's incredibly annoying. But that's ITN for you, I guess.-- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose, as at least there's a source in the body for the info that is in the infobox now. There is a writeup of the results, but it's still in the lead, not the body.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose restore The election was weeks ago, the media were reporting a couple of weeks ago that Republicans were going to take the house. And I don't see anyone reporting anything any more. This is very stale. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not stale. The election was weeks ago, but the Republicans had only taken the House less than a week ago. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is they don't take to the House until January. The news reports here, about a day after the election, were clear that it was a narrow Republican victory in the house, but the Senate could go either way, based on what had already been counted. Which is when it was in the news. It's not in the news now ...perhaps even a week ago, it was still in the news - but the news has moved on. If it really wasn't clear to some media what the result was going to be weeks ago, the ITN blurb would be "election too close to call" - because that was the news story. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on - it looks like we already blurbed the election result 10 days ago ... but only mentioned the upper house. I'm not sure why there needs to be a second blurb for lower house ... and a week after the news all but stopped. ITNR doesn't call for having two blurbs for the unusual case of counting very slowly. Nfitz (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * -- We did not know who had won the House until last week, the news was quite clear that although Republicans were expected to take the House, it was unexpectedly close and there was a chance that the Democrats would retain both the House and Senate. Anyway, the reason this was blurbed is for the same reason we blurbed both the resignation of Truss and Sunak's nomination. They were not separate blurbs, but we bumped the blurb about Truss back up and added information about Sunak, which is what I had initially proposed when nominating this, but everyone said "no" for some reason. It does feel like there's a different standard for American news items vs. the rest of the world here on Wikipedia, I don't get it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it's too close to count, was the blurb that should have been with the rest of the election result ... when it wasn't stale. I don't see a problem with bumping. At the same time, how is it different? Looking at other nations that have simultaneous bicameral elections, I can find only one blurb - such as for Australian Senate and Australian House of Representatives in the 2022 Australian federal election. It always feels to me like there is that many here do indeed think there's a different standard for American news items. In the last week alone from the USA we've had two nominations for relatively small shootings, another for an almost entirely unreported helicopter accident that killed only a couple of people, and a nomination for the fraud conviction of someone that didn't receive widespread coverage, and almost no one has heard of. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a different standard when it comes to British politics, at least. I'm not sure how you can't see how bumping the blurb for the House is no different than than bumping the blurb for Sunak. Anyway, yes, people like to propose stories from the US to ITN that don't belong (although mass shootings are usually ITN, so you could argue they do.) That doesn't change my point that ITN often feels like UKpedia. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose restore Lack of prose summary of the results, chronic problem for election articles nominated here, not specific to this nomination.  Spencer T• C 04:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not ready. The sections with orange tags still haven't been fixed up. Please actually resolve the problem rather than removing the tags. There is a table now, although it has a citation needed tag in it,not sure what for. Plus, as Spencer says, a short summary of results in prose would be in order. This page is already a somewhat unsightly mess of statistical trivia, but at least getting the basics in place is necessary before reposting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carol Leigh

 * Comment Leigh was an artist, author, filmmaker, and sex workers' rights activist who is credited by multiple sources with coining the term "sex work". Beccaynr (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive and fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Pertschuk

 * Comment: Half of the Career section is in list format (copied and pasted from his CV???) but may read better as prose. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the yellow-tagged career section isn't enough for me to oppose, but the substandard referencing is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have converted the lists to prose, expanded, and cited everything. Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted I concur.– Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robert Clary

 * I have marked several cn tags. Curbon7 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Eight {cn} tags remaining in the prose. The lists of film and TV roles are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is orange tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frida (dog)

 * Weak support I'm not convinced this article isn't a stub, but it has been assessed as "start", and doesn't seem particularly stubby, so I'm going to say it's fine, and given it meets the other criteria, I'm leaning support. DecafPotato (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One-section article aboyt a dog. And too few words for it to be posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Animals are eligible for RD in exactly the same way as humans are. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable and good enough for ITN's purposes, although expansion would be good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not a stub, and deaths are precleared This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Not Ready Needs expansion. Word count of 227 is inadequate for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no minimum word count for ITN, nor for not being a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * we are looking at quality items to post, and minimal size is an unwritten factor in that. M asem (t) 15:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are looking for well-written articles that are at least reasonably comprehensive and adequately sourced, not articles that are of a particular length. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) But this article really is very short. If it was about a person, we would rightfully complain that it is short. Tone 15:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf Article quality is always a criteria when considering a nomination, including RD. Over the years it has become common to reject articles that are stubs or generally short on actual text regarding the subject. IMO this article is not currently up to scratch for the main page. You are of course, free to disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, article quality is a criterion but a word limit is not a measure of article quality. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No reason for ITN to not be subject to the same 1500 bytes of readable prose minimum as its Main Page counterpart WP:DYK.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than a lack of consensus for that limit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is one section of prose—the lead—and this is therefore a stub. While this is notable, we don't do stubs here. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not a stub (hard to see how it could be expanded much further) and meets minimum quality standards.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it can't be extended. then it shouldn't be posted because other articles of this size were not posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. What mattes is that the article is reasonably comprehensive, and how long a reasonably comprehensive article is depends on the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some notable topics that cannot be expanded much beyond the length of a stub. This may be one of them, but a stub is a stub. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If an article is sufficiently comprehensive that it can't be expanded then it isn't a stub - by definition a stub is Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thryduulf. A short article is not necessarily a stub. I would like to know what pertinent information is missing about the life of this dog.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Pawnkingthree's take. The article covers everything one could reasonably expect of an article on a rescue dog and is therefore not a stub, just a short article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The complaints about size are obsolete as the article is now larger than the DYK minimum and has 4 sections besides the lead. It has more prose than the latest human RD – Werner Franke (2605 > 2438 per WP:DYKCHECK). Andrew🐉(talk)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 missile explosion in Poland

 * Note: this nomination is covered by WP:GS/RUSUKR and is restricted to extended-confirmed accounts. Nableezy 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Again, I don’t support blurbing every little update of the war, but this is an accidental(?) strike on an outside non-combatant country. It’s certainly highly notable in the grand scheme of the war. The Kip (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Pending clarity on implications from NATO member states, which should happen quickly 47.176.81.182 (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC) (non-ec !vote struck)


 * Support Number of sources have mentioned that both Polish and US officials have confirmed it. Very significant in the war, since as Kip said, it is a (likely accidental) strike on a non-combatant. Awhahoo (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC) (non-ec !vote struck)


 * Oppose - first there are reports that what hit Poland is the remains of a Russian missile that was shot down by Ukraine. Second, it is speculation on Article 5 being invoked. When there is something that comes of this then post. Not before. In the meantime, covered by ongoing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait . Too soon to be sure what happened here, or how Poland & NATO will respond. It might be an accident that generates some diplomatic protests but nothing more. If so, I don't think it's ITN-worthy. If it somehow leads to Poland intervening in the war, that will be worth posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose. Poland is now blaming the explosion on stray Ukrainian air defences, so there's unlikely to be any escalation of the conflict. Tragic for those involved, but a footnote to the wider war. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 - Major news, self-explanatory. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Seems quite a minor spillover so we'd need to see the consequences. There's plenty happening generally – for example, the world's biggest warship arriving in Europe.  It's all part of the War in Ukraine story which we have in Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it was a deliberate attack it would certainly be significant. But the reports I have seen indicate that it was accidental. Also, the article is still a stub. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Not enough information yet and unclear what the ramifications will be. – Anne drew  20:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. This is still a developing situation. However, if this becomes big enough (I personally hope not), I would vote to support this, provided that the article is well-cited. Vida0007 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Event has dramatic reactions online, 2 people were killed. I dont quite see how "accidental" is an oppose-consensus as 2 people are still dead regardless. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 20:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because two people being killed, while tragic for their families and friends, isnt quite on the level of being on the front page of Wikipedia. Chicago, for example, has averaged two people killed a day so far this month. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support but wait - this has the potential to become very very bad, or it could just result in stern condemnation. We should wait a little bit rather than rushing to beat the news. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- a serious escalation that is dominating the news across the world. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait: it's not yet clear that the missile was Russian (the BBC is reporting that it might have been an S-300, which doesn't have the range to hit Poland from Russia). --Carnildo (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is important. The nature of what landed in Poland is currently uncertain. Neither of the proposed blurbs as written are fully verifiable at the current time. —LukeSurlt c 22:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - this is a major escalation that within hours is already dominating global headlines Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC) (non-ec !vote struck)ftgfhgjkl
 * Strong support – Russian attack on a NATO member state DecafPotato (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until responsibility and significance of consequences are clear. Mellk (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And to add Mellk (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and wait - I support this as an major escalation. But wait until confirmed fully.BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Nothing certain yet. The word attack/strike itself is reminiscent of warmongering and poor media coverage. This needs to be further clarified by the right parties and experts. Merangs (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Per above comments.  Volunteer Marek   22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Per above. Urbanracer34 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait Per above. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC) (non-ec vote struck)
 * Wait until tomorrow's NATO meeting and further info from people speaking in official capacity. NYT etc aren't attributing blame to Russia yet. I don't think NATO/Poland/US formally have either. Some "senior government sources" have, but that's not the same thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vehemently oppose Russia isn't nice, but automatically blaming for everything bad that happens without concrete evidence is totally unacceptable and stupid, both on the international stage, and in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If a NATO country makes a rather large cross border attack which Turkey did in April, we also didn't post. Its not a declared war, its just a strike, not even with airplanes and troops which Turkey used und still uses in their publicly justified attacks, but for now only with missiles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and wait per above. Sarrail  (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Poland invoked Article 4. While it’s unlikely to escalate, I don’t think any other incident of the past 20 years has warranted this. Juxlos (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Article 4 was invoked by Turkey when Russia shot down a Turkish plane on the Syria-Turkey border in 2012, and again in 2015, and again in Feb 2020. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this stuff is crap 69.75.169.38 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whatever happened to waiting until all of the facts are available? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the NATO press conference at least. Curbon7 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - This won't cause World War III, but an attack on a NATO country, if accidental, by a foreign adversary is huge news, and has been the top story of every site. This has escalated the war. I would add that it might be good to specify that the missiles were stray, as the blurb could be mistaken for saying Russian missiles directly attacked Poland, when that is likely not what happened. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also omit 'Russian', as we currently do not know where the missiles came from(even if Russia is a likely source) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC) (non-ec !vote struck)


 * Oppose For now this is a minor cross border military incident, of the sort that occurs from time to time in conflicts. But keeping an eye on it. If things escalate, I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait. Even if it was an accident, indeed this is a serious incident to a sovereignty country that isn't at war. However, I'll wait how the Polish/NATO officials will respond. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 01:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm favorable to a blurb that stays neutral on responsibility or reason. This is news, IMO, even if accidental and regardless of who did it. I would favor a blurb that notes the strike and keeps it there until we get more news and wish to update the blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added and Support AltblurbII. It could probably be improved a tad, but I think this is a good blurb to go with right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support although this may appear to be a minor incident, it is incidents like this that lead to some sort of conflict, even another potential world war. major escalation in the war. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable international incident. While reliable sources generally support that Russia is responsible, I'd prefer alt blurb 2 unless there's a new development. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait to see if NATO does something. If they enter the war then I'll support, if it's just saber-rattling then I'll oppose. Banedon (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please explain why you are unilaterally deciding to strike comments from non-EC people? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's because of WP:GS/RUSUKR, which outlined rules for topic such as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe there should be some kind of notice here then. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Note: this nomination is covered by WP:GS/RUSUKR and is restricted to extended-confirmed accounts. Nableezy 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)" DarkSide830 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it clearly isn't being noticed. Maybe some kind of template would be good for discussions on pages outside the article talkpages. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I was hit with it right before I hit EC ~1 month ago. Had no clue. I think it would be nice for this to be better enunciated. That isn't my area of expertise though. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont have any way besides that note to do anything here, cant exactly protect the page, the edit-notice would be inapplicable to most topics, so I do what I can. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Make it bold or something. Frogging101 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It appears now that the objects' trajectory did not originate in Russia, according to President Biden, speaking to reporters at the G20 summit. The event does merit a mention in Ongoing, where it is currently briefly noted, and unless there is new information to consider, it is a good thing the wait !votes here, and the appropriately cautious admins, have prevailed so far. The change of the main link article title reflects that, and the initial pure support votes were, in my view, poorly thought through, though made in good faith. Jusdafax (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for the NATO response. Potentially significant, but that depends on how NATO responds. Early signs (e.g. ) seem to this being not a deliberate targeted attack, but perhaps sort of unfortunate interception/deflection by Ukrainian AA against Russian missiles launched at targets close to the Polish-Ukrainian border. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if this was Russian, unless it was proven it was deliberate, it will almost surely have no geopolitical impact. 2A02:2F01:F206:A500:ACB9:80C1:561A:62A0 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for NATO response, per others. Doesn't change the game/elevate news item from ongoing otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have the Ongoing section for a reason, and this isn't important enough, especially as it now appears the missile was a Ukranian defence one. . Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until NATO responds, but if a Russian-made attack occurs in Poland, it will trigger Article 5.  HurricaneEdgar    13:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on the news that NATO has determined this was from a Ukraine air defense missile, and not from Russia. Reuters --M asem (t) 13:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We jumped the gun by assuming this was Russian, let this be a warning to wait until all the facts are avaliable before making such a judgement. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I reaffirm my oppose !vote above, a bit more strongly this time, per Masem.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 14:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my above oppose and suggest close. As it is no longer believed to be a Russian missile the entire nomination is effectively moot. This is looking like big fat nothing burger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Artemis 1

 * This nomination is premature. It is impossible to assess the update to the article before the event has occurred. I think this should be closed; come back if/when it actually launches. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until it actually occurs. Alternatively, post the blurb exactly as it is currently written. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop doing this. Don't. Nominate. Articles. Early. "Giving it a checkup" now- which I'm sure interested editors were already doing without a nomination- might not have much bearing on how the article will actually look when the event happens, and it certainly won't allow anyone to judge whether or not the article should be posted on ITN. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're giving a fair amount of credence to the probability of the rocket exploding, which I find amusing.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Forget waiting. Let's stop encouraging people to post noms before an event happens. Let someone post it again when it happens. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest close The nominated event has not yet taken place. Chrisclear (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing The mission has been postponed several times already. And if it does get off the ground, it will be about a month before it returns.  So it seems more of an ongoing event. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post this NOW – rocket is flying atm. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the rocket has officially launched, I am comfortable supporting. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 06:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Launch successful, Earth orbit achieved. A new era in spaceflight, with a goal of establishing a lunar base. International impact. Jusdafax (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So exciting to see people put so much energy into shutting down useful constructive discussion only hours before a major scientific event that has a pre-determined exact time and date, which actually happens at the said pre-determined time in the middle of the night when most editors are asleep. Yay wikipedia, you have outdone youself again. At this point we should only allow postings of carnages, elections and gay-marriage approvals to ITN since everything else seems to be heavily despised by the 'established' editors. 2A02:2F01:F206:A500:ACB9:80C1:561A:62A0 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do feel like people really should stop nominating articles before they are ready and before the event has occurred... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Crazy as it sounds, I actually partially agree with this. Not the politics stuff, but the "shutting down useful constructive discussion" part. We should've keep this discussion running instead of archiving it like before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And a bit on the "bad news" part too... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely stand by my decision to close the premature nomination. You seem to have assumed that the rocket was destined to launch that night. It wasn't. Several other attempted launches of this rocket were scrubbed in the past, and there were some early indications that it could have occurred again. And no, we do not post a news item NOW; the article needs to have qualitative updates and that needed to be confirmed first before we could go ahead with a posting. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It can be posted now that the rocket has been successfully launched; very notable. Nythar  (💬-🎃) 07:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Should we indicate in the blurb that this is an unmanned launch? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ with an altblurb and per the article infobox I have added "test flight" for clarity. I should add that for ITN purposes this term does not reduce the notability. Jusdafax (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Article looks good, support. It'll also be ITNR when it gets to the Moon in a week and a half; it's worth considering now whether we plan to bump/repost this then or just update the blurb. —Cryptic 08:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The launch time and date is currently uncited within the "Launch" section of the article. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Anarchyte, I've added a reference.<span id="Nythar:1668591078821:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 09:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted alt1. Note: I've started a discussion at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright to reduce some ambiguity about the copyright of File:NASA Artemis 1 Launch.jpg. If it turns out the NC isn't an issue, I'll add it to the blurb. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A fine image, and as you say in the clarification notice, copyright is likely a non-issue, so I strongly endorse its addition, thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Worldwide population exceeds 8B

 * Support - Arbitrary milestone, yes, but this is amazing. It absolutely is a global interest story, for reasons which I'd think would be obvious!--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  01:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To put in perspective, 7B was hit in 2011, and 9B is expected ~2040-ish. This is not something we'd be posting every year. M asem (t) 01:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A notable event, but the issue here is this is a projection. Sure we can reasonably assume that we will have hit 8 billion by, say, the end of the year, but I think posting something like this with a nebulous date attached to it is not a good idea. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The UN is the most authorative source on this, and there is no way we will get an exact count. They specifically say their estimates have 8B crossing today, but I'm sure there's a considerable margin of error they can't reduce. M asem (t) 03:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going after the UN or anything, but the very fact that there is innately such a margin or error, even for the best source, is exactly my issue here. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The news isn't that the human population has exceeded 8 billion (which it may or may not have) - the news is that the UN estimates the human population has exceeded 8 billion. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. That I'm even more opposed to. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, and suggest wording it as "The UN estimates the world population to have exceeded 8B", thereby attaching the date to the UN estimate and avoiding issues of precision. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is DYK material. Just follow the example of Day of Seven Billion to nominate Day of Eight Billion. Last time the hook was "Did you know... that the United Nations Population Fund has designated today as the Day of Seven Billion?", so something similar should work now as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Humanity reaches a new milestone. Coming from the UN gives it even more relevance. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge milestone, definitely for ITN and not DYK. Might be a good idea to somehow work the Day of Eight Billion article into the blurb. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major event for humanity. Another relevant article is at World population milestones, although someone might want to take a look at the table numbers, which have been a little funky due to reliance on decades old predictions for a while. I think some of the "time elapsed" figures are still wrong despite incremental corrections, which do not reflect the original source... 193.60.60.66 (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Bit mixed on this one, but at the end of the day this is a huge milestone for humanity, if arbitrary. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I don't know if we posted 7B or not, but I agree with the previous !voters that this is a huge milestone definitely worth an ITN blurb.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 11:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to note that I prefer the altblurb here, with a link to Day of Eight Billion.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, 8 billion is just an arbitrary number only of interest because we use the decimal system. The population is going up steadily, so hitting any particular milestone is both routine and expected. Secondly, as noted above, this is completely an estimate. The figure may have actually been reached previously or maybe hasn't yet and there's no reason to favour UN estimates over others. All in all, not a story worth including at ITN and better suited ti DYK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The US census bureau estimate is still well short of 8bn. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, if we used a base-6 system we wouldn't care about 8B, but we don't, and almost nobody does in everyday life.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 12:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Yes this is an arbitrary number, and yes it's only an estimate. But it's also of fundamental importance, and population growth is a topic we would never post at all if we didn't use big numbers as milestones. The world population article is mostly excellent and will interest our readers. There are currently two orange tagged sections that need addressing, though it appears those would be easy to do (or could be moved to the talk page for now). In contrast, Day of Eight Billion is barely more than a stub so should not be bold-linked. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  12:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose arbitrary milestone, nothing particularly important about numbers that have a bunch of zeroes at the end. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's true that the figure of 8B only really matters within our deeply ingrained social constructs relating to numbers and decimals. But I think we ought to cast the number itself aside, and instead focus more on this interesting factoid from the article, which is not arbitrary: It took over two million years of human prehistory and history for the human population to reach one billion and only 219 years more to grow to 8 billion. The scale of population growth in the last couple of centuries has been staggeringly immense, even factoring in all of our wars and pandemics. At some point, it needs to be recognized. There's really no better time than now. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only surprising to people who don't understand how math works. Exponential growth is well understood, and human population has followed a largely predictable curve for centuries.  The 8 billionth currently existing human is not particularly more interesting than the 7,999,999,999th person, excepting that they won the round number lottery.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See also compound interest for similar math. It's basically saying my savings account grew faster when there was more money in it. Which is nice, but also not news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article doesn't explain the significance, making it seem arbitrary. Lacks a sufficient update per WP:ITN: —Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. The substance of the update is the paramount purpose of ITN.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, a very big milestone.  4me689  (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, very large milestone! This will change sources from the 7 billion figure I have been used to for so long, important to promote this news. --Pithon314 (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – I like this topic and I think it can make a great blurb. However, the World population article does not yet go in enough detail/isn't updated enough, and the Day of Eight Billion article is not ready to be featured. In particular, I would really want to see information on how the crossing of the threshold was calculated. Right now it is very unclear why it was estimated that today is the day. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Milestone in history of humanity, source seems reliable. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it'll be news when the population stops going up, not when it continues going up. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support might be a random milestone, but it gets news coverage. This is ITN and is encyclopedic. 2A02:2F01:F206:A500:ACB9:80C1:561A:62A0 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The discussion about an "arbitrary number" seems a bit silly to me. The vast majority of the world uses a decimal number system, so surely the number isn't really that arbitrary. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. While there is merit to the argument that 8 billion is arbitrary, it has underlying cultural and political significance, and the UN estimate establishes it as an actual news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A Global Milestone. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,Notable subject Alex-h (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pre-posting comment Even though I would personally oppose this, I was about to say there was obvious consensus to post and do it anyway. But most of the supports/opposes are addressing the notability of the topic.  Few of them are addressing the quality of the article.  There is currently an orange maintenance tag on the article, which has traditionally been considered a near-veto on posting.  I think we can say that there is consensus that the topic can be posted, and so we need fewer comments about that, and need more comments (and fixes!) on the quality of the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a major international milestone with widespread media coverage. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 19:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Huge milestone for mankind, widespread news coverage, and the articles in question are well-sourced. Not to mention that a consensus is already building here. Vida0007 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Billion milestones for the population of humanity are very newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecafPotato (talk • contribs)
 * I'll rephrase my bolded comment. No admin is likely to post this until the orange maintenance tag is dealt with, and there is consensus that the article is otherwise in good shape. There is already consensus that it is notable enough to post; that is no longer what is in question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * tap. tap. tap. is this thing on? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. MyriadSims (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's an important milestone. HonestlyIncredible (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Supportimportant milestoneParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support This will never happen again in our lifetimes that we know of...  Cheers.  Wime  Pocy  01:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – An interesting, notable item that is exactly what I believe WP:ITN should be about. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Franke

 * Support. Looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Virginia McLaurin

 * Weak support Well-sourced, but the prose is very weak at the moment; there is basically a black hole in coverage from 1939 to 2013. The paragraphing is also not ideal, with several short 1-sentence paragraphs. Regardless, as I said, it is well-sourced, and enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it more, I have to change to Weak oppose; the prose issues are just too much at the moment to overlook. Curbon7 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Very weak support. I see the prose issues Curbon mentions, and imo they're on the borderline bad enough to deny posting until improvement but not quite. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Readers will learn something from this article and it has no serious flaws. Also, we have a criteria and this satisfies it. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Donald

 * Support all looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written and cited. Holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 10:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Cochrane

 * Oppose the Poetry collections section is entirely unsourced. Apart from that it looks fine though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf thanks for reviewing! Another user has kindly added ISBN details and I've added citations for those that don't have ISBNs. Is this sufficient or does each entry need a direct citation? (It wouldn't be too difficult to add a citation for each, if that's needed.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All good now. for works that have an ISBN that is fine for a bibliography listing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Chocmilk03 fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Slovenian elections

 * Correction. It seems I have updated the article 2022 Slovenian presidential elections as well as the lead of Natasa Pirc Musar with the info that she won. But anyway, important is the result. Doremo updated the infobox of the Natasa Pirc Musar article and Topjur01 created the Natasa Pirc Musar article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality I would like to see more prose in general, in the entire article. And a section on Aftermath/Reactions is missing. The election of non-executive HoS is not ITNR, but I think that in the face of historic results such as the election of a woman as head of a country for the first time is reason enough to post it. I trust that the quality of the article will be updated soon _-_Alsor (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality Per _-_Alsor. Articles seem to be off to a good start on sourcing, but I'd also like to point that there's no result section apart from the infobox. aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  03:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article and expanded the article with prose before your weak oppose
 * "per Alsor". Now I also added a result section, (in fact just splitting the second round paragraph) provided two blurbs one with one without linking to the elections article. She won, I updated both articles. Don't know what else to do and I can accept if this is not notable enough. It seems Natasa Pirc Musar is not a Wikipedia personality as her article was declined for notability. And that the diff for the decline somehow disappeared is really interesting.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for making and noting these changes—upon further observation I think these articles are good to go.  aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  18:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Change of head of state is ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all changes of heads of state are. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment please, add a section about the aftermath or the reactions. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having seen the vote by Jayron32, it encouraged me to add a section on some candidates and some more prose on the roles of a president of Slovenia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Change of head of state, first female president, article is of sufficient quality. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, New government and the first female president Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article on the election probably just barely passes the minimum standards for amount of prose, but is still very light on text. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per above Cherrell410 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Istanbul bombing

 * Support - Expansion needed.  Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait. It's not that significant if it's just a random attack. Post if more news comes out in the following days indicating that it has legal or political significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support when expanded - Notable event, all over the news. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Expansion may be difficult as the gov't has locked down the Internet for coverage of this. --M asem (t) 17:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – as has been said, this is extremely notable and newsworthy. – BarleyButt (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but Wait for expansion MyriadSims (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - notable event, this event is all over the news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait Of course notable event, but news are still coming in.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Support - A current event with ongoing developments, also due to general bandwidth shrinking for social media in Turkey, this might prove helpful to acquire news on the event. Mavromatis (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. This is certainly notable enough to post, but we probably want to wait for more than breaking news reporting to ensure the article is accurate when we post it. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm comfortable with the quality of the article and the quality of reporting now that we're out of the true "breaking news" time. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add the WL on Turkey in the blurb, it could deviate the attention on the bombing a bit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a wikilink to Turkey is not needed. That being said, I don't see the harm in it and I don't think it will substantially detract from the bold bombing's relative prominence. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Noteworthy, and article has been significantly expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly notable, and frankly the article is very reasonably developed given the broadcast ban etc, and is in good enough shape currently for the main page. —GGT (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems reasonable. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Number of deaths is lower than 10. The attack is, for lack of a better term, just a 'regular' attack. Randam (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for its notability. May need some expansion works but right now it should be just alright to post. SBS6577P (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is good now, no need to wait more. -Imad_J (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Randam. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I considered nominating this but at the time the article was very short. I think now it should be fine to post as more information has come in. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * leaning Oppose per the number of victims, the broadcast ban is much more notable I guess but I don't know how the guidelines on this are.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on both notability and article quality.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 12:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup

 * I can’t do it right now because I’m on mobile, but could someone please add a picture of Sam Curran as the Player of the Match? Source:. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  12:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC).
 * Support - Subject is WP:ITN/R and article in good shape, although I'd like to see some prose on the final.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 12:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk)  12:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Satisfies WP:ITNSPORTS. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose in the body on actual tournament play, including the final; just tables and box scores.—Bagumba (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Final be the bolded article? (That needs details on the match itself as well.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really anything on WP:ITNSPORTS saying it has to be either or. I've seen both posted on their own many times and either of them work. I probably prefer the wider tournament article as it links to the competition that the champion won, not just their final game, and you can still navigate to the final article via it. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I can see why it would be better in the first two proposed blurbs given they refer to the Final anyway. Added alt blurb 2. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Satisfies WP:ITNSPORTS and the article conveys the tournament accurately in a way that is useful for our readers. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article lacks prose about the tournament itself or at least the final. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is reasonable, and is the most recent world cup in sports. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 01:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Final should be the main article which lacks prose. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the article is improved. Also WP:ITNSPORTS. Randam (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's still no prose at either 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Final or 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article should be 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Final and it's not finished.  I Need Support  😷 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per INeedSupport. Sporting events we blurb the article about the final, and if that's not ready we shouldn't just cop out and post a different article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as the article for the Final has now been updated with prose. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready now that sourced prose is present - use modified altblurb2 - getting an error posting it myself so if someone else would do the honours. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:John Connaughton

 * Missing citations noted by the nominator are still required, but nothing else stands out as problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf, think I've got these now? - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready, now fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty well sourced article now, looking ready for RD Josey Wales Parley 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carroll Hubbard

 * Support. No obvious issues. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uncited contentious statement in the Rubbergate section. Once resolved, it is good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Curbon7, I added that content (with a cite to the Courier Journal) but the citation was lost in later edits by others. Now readded - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Issues resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 United States elections

 * Wait until they officially call the House, then publish. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I do think senate control was the big picture here, but I would at least wait a half day from now to see if the house direction looks any closer. M asem (t) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The house could take days to call. I'd post the Senate now, and the House later when it's called. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the House is called, then use alt 2 (assuming that's how it plays out). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It makes no sense to post the Senate results now and the House results later, especially when it's ITNR that this is a general election, both chambers together. We can wait. When are the official results expected to be called? I'm surprised that one of the most advanced countries in the world has been counting votes for almost a week. _-_Alsor (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of counting. The deadline for mail-in votes to be received is in the future in some places.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support Why did someone delete my post exposing Trumpist fraud and lies? 2600:100F:B100:1F76:5906:EF2A:8D24:297C (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you:
 * Failed to follow WP:NPOV in your blurb
 * Used a non-news source
 * Said something false (there was no blue wave, there was just the lack of a red wave)
 * Tube·of·Light 03:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a blue wave tho, dems gained seats in the senate and will win the house as well, trump is finished 2600:100F:B100:1F76:5906:EF2A:8D24:297C (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * this is not the place for this kind of stuff so stop. _-_Alsor (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Donald J Trump was not standing in this election, and the existence of any sort of 'wave' is a matter for political punditry, not Wikipedia headlines. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait till both houses are called (If Nevada goes to the GOP, then just add that the senate is undecided as Georgia will have a run-off election). Tube·of·Light 03:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The default assumption was that the House will go to the GOP and that the Dems were the slight favorite to retain the Senate, but the Senate could go either way. That the Dems retain control of the Senate is then nontrivial news. But the House going to the GOP is a foregone conclusion (probability of this not happening is not zero but it is extremely small), we should not wait for that to become official. Count Iblis (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A)The GOP was the favorite to win the Senate, B) the House going to the GOP was not a foregone conclusion before the election or even today, C) The Dem chances in the House are way over zero (betting markets say about 20%), & D) no one is talking about waiting for it to be official, we follow reliable sources, who have not called the house.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 2. The Dems win the Senate while the GOP wins the House. A split Congress so no impeachment. Shwcz (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A GOP House would likely impeach Biden regardless of Senate control. 331dot (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any talk of impeachment is pure crystal balls. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? Cheers. Wime  Pocy  01:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Post. The House has not been called and is not a foregone conclusion, the Democrats have a narrow but realistic path to retaining the majority. There is no reason to wait for the House to be called(which may not be soon due to recounts) in order to post the Senate. 331dot (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting Senate control of the House will probably come down to California, which notoriously takes weeks to count all of its ballots. Preferably we post the Senate now and update the blurb when the House is decided. YD407OTZ (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have official results as we've had enough of wishful thinking and misrepresentation. And we're an encyclopedia not news media and so there's no rush. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We have never waited for official results/certifications/inaugurations/formalities. We follow the news. If you don't think the news should be in the business of reporting unofficial election results, take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also very curious as to what is being "misrepresented" here. This is In the news, not "list of official events and happenings"331dot (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you guys waiting for the time someone tells us "Oppose this news is stale"? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting Senate House results have not been called yet. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for the HoR to be called by the usual major news sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? It may not be for awhile, and at that point it will be said posting the Senate is stale. We can always add the House later. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Posting Senate now, as the result is known and posting the House of Representatives whenever that result becomes clear Josey Wales Parley 18:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for the house results to be called. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Senate now and then when House is called, bump the blurb back up with the new results. Like we did when Truss resigned. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Senate now - I'm with supporters saying the U.S. Senate voting results are ITN-blurb-worthy right now, and update the blurb when the House results are in. The suggestions that we wait for the House results fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Senate now, and say nothing one way or the other about the House of Representatives until it's actually called. When it is, replace with a fuller blurb. (Compare, for example, Liz Truss' resignation, and how the subsequent 'election' result replaced it.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I see consensus now to post the Senate results, and to update and reblurb when the House is finally called. Can an admin please do this? Thanks. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Senate now as we could be waiting weeks for all the House races to resolve themselves. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment #2 -- I have to say, it's annoying to see this just sit here two days after the Senate was called. When Liz Truss resigned, we immediately posted it. What is the hold up? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Be patient. There are only 2 or 3 admins who are active on ITN, and they have lives too. Consensus for posting the Senate was only found today. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I know patience is indeed a virtue. It's just a bit annoying. :-) -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Tense I looked at the Senate article and found quite a few cases of an inappropriate future tense for something that is now in the past.  So, it needs copy-editing.
 * Another thing I noticed was that the Democrats have less seats than the Republicans – just 48 to 49. It seems that the balance is held by two Independents – Angus King and Bernie Sanders.  Elsewhere, this would be called a coalition or hung parliament.  This doesn't seem to be strong control by any party as, when it's so close, any Senator can cause trouble for such close votes.  So blurbing a Democratic majority seems incorrect when you need 51 for a majority and they only have 48. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * King and Sanders caucus with the Democrats; a UK comparison would be the relationship between Labour and the Co-ops, basically one and the same. Curbon7 (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add on to that, because the Vice President is a Democrat, she can serve as a tie breaker in the case of 50-50 votes. So, for all practical purposes, the Democrats control the Senate. YD407OTZ (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanders & King are essentially independents in name only. They caucus w/the Democrats & usually vote the same way as the Democrats. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The caucus mechanism seems mainly to do with allocation of seats on committees. But when it comes to party allegiance and voting, someone like Angus King seems to be his own man – "neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but an American".  According to Angus_King, "King voted with the Democratic Party 43% of the time", which doesn't sound like consistent, dependable support.  As he rejects the party label, we should not be pinning one on him. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A more accurate way of showing the outcome in the Senate would be to link to the Senate Democratic Caucus rather than the Democratic Party. The Senate Democratic Caucus is the formal organisation which has secured a majority. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider that nearly all RSes reporting on the results have stated that the Dems kept control of the Senate. You could argue that they are wrongly categorized, but between what RS say and what we know King and Sanders have done, this is a fact. M asem (t) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I’m neutral WRT whether or not the Senate results should be posted now or when the House results are known, I oppose the 1st 2 alt blurbs. We shouldn’t be a crystal ball. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Marking Senate as ready per consensus. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't an ITN/R item because these aren't general elections, so the nomination should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As for notability, I think only a change in the control of one of the houses deserves attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does someone do this every time? These are absolutely general elections, both by the dictionary definition of that term and the laws used to implement them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ...Midterm elections are general elections in the United States. Therefore, it is ITN/R. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted senate with suggested blurb. Would've liked to add an image of Chuck Schumer but Party leaders of the United States Senate and Majority leader are (appropriately) orange tagged. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we update the posting to reflect the House results? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Post House Now the AP have determined that the house has won the majority. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Dallas airshow mid-air collision

 * Oppose (FWIW I've seen 6 tossed around as a number for death toll). An unfortunate incident and while highly published, not really the type of disaster we cover. --M asem (t) 23:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem MyriadSims (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Death does not confer significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - we posted the 2019 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crash when it happened. There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, article is in a reasonable shape. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Crashes at air shows are uncommon, and ones involving historic aircraft are more notable. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Mjroots & 331dot. SBS6577P (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lean support this is a pretty uncommon incident, and the historic value of these aircraft makes it notable in my opinion. YD407OTZ (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Masem PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. If we post this (no opinion) the blurb should link the types of aircraft involved for the benefit of those of us not familiar with them. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's starting to get into trainspotting territory. We don't post airliner models in the case of commercial airline crashes. M asem (t) 16:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Masem I should have qualified that as if mentioned in the blurb they should be linked. The posted altblurb which doesn't mention them is fine by me but including technical detail without a link should be avoided. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support International coverage. ArionEstar (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support given the historic nature of the aircraft -- lomrjyo  talk 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support lots of coverage this side of the world as well for this accident Josey Wales Parley 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This appears to be an incident which has gathered international attention and the article is of substantial quality. This sort of crash is uncommon and there is precedent (as noted by our posting of the 2019 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crash) that this sort of thing reasonably merits inclusion at ITN. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Spectacular tragedy and widely reported, with the historic aircraft an additional factor. Jusdafax (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As article creator, grateful for the nomination and addition to the lead news section and to see the article garnered significant attention. In addition to the obvious human loss, this is a significant loss for the history of American aviation. Ppt91 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fix blurb The current blurb is awful: "In the United States, six people are killed in a mid-air plane collision at an air show in Dallas, Texas."  This spends far too much energy explaining that Dallas is in Texas which is in the United States, which most of our readership already knows.  None of that it is significant.  What matters is that the crash involved two WW2 aircraft and we even have an article about one of them: Texas Raiders.  ITN is supposed to help readers navigate to relevant articles, not teach basic geography!  Andrew🐉(talk) 21:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main related article is always bolded. Other links can be a bit more subjective and arguably oversaturate the blurb at times. —Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not the level of disaster we cover. Any reason it was posted when it was on the verge of a snow close earlier? Confused. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably because after the "snow close" suggestion there were nine supports and only one further oppose. I can see why DatGuy judged that as a consensus to post, even if I'm indifferent to the nom myself. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Closers can expect occasional heat when posting with this level of consensus, but I don't see this instance as an obvious pull either. —Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. When posting, there were five opposes and ten supports (including nom). I found the argument of the type of aircrafts and precedent to counter the significane argument. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Lots of coverage, this type of collision is uncommon given the nature of both of these aircraft. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support although the blurb should be improved (no clue as to how, though).  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 15:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure how this is notable, or likely even enduring. There was some world-wide TV coverage at the time - likely more for the explosion-porn aspect of it. Vintage plane crashes were common enough pre-Covid - look at this list from just one country! Given the low death-toll, and not even any reported injuries on the ground, I don't understand the support for this - especially given how quickly it dropped out of the news cycle. Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose, fwiw. Almost certainly wouldn't have been posted from any other country (except possibly the UK).  Dropped out of the news cycle within a day. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose too, its interesting in that it doesnt often occur, but cmon 6 dead in a freak occurrence is front page worthy? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull. Tragic, freak accident, but not nearly on the scale of disasters that get posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to this story, as both planes are among the last of their kind that are airworthy, so I won't advocate for outright pulling, but I think more discussion time would have been valuable, as many of the original support rationales are quite weak. Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * More worthy of a DYK than ITN imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Mid-air collisions are exceedingly rare. A mid-air collision which kills 6 people (the same number of deaths in the bombing we just posted) AND which involves two aircraft that are among the last of their type, thus attracting fairly widespread global coverage? In my eyes, that meets the threshold for ITN, and that is why a consensus initially formed to post. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mehran Karimi Nasseri

 * I've added a second citation needed tag. There is also an uncited sentence at the end of the Life... section but I don't see that one as contentious enough to hold up posting so I've not tagged it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs some ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support definitely more notable than many South Dakotan representatives we occasionally see pop up here. --Synotia (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Synotia, please be reminded that notability is not a criterion for RD. However, to qualify for RD, the wikibio needs to be cleaned up first. More notable people won't get onto RD if their wikibio still needs fixing. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Five {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All the issues appear to have been resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support,It is a notable story and article is good enough. Alex-h (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Women's Rugby Union World Cup

 * Comment - Did we blurb the cup in 2017? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes :) Kingsif (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Need prose about the final game, its just a table right now. --M asem (t) 12:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait no actual prose about the game other than in the lead (which needs to reflect the article content). Thus not yet been updated enough as per WP:ITNCRIT. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC) – Wait strikethrough and now support as per issues addressed by Kinkgsif below. Edit by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Background section does not cite any sources XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Now added references. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Now has summary, proposed image is in article, added other images, too. Kingsif (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not ITN/R as that item is just the men's event. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I never said it was ITNR, just that it was posted last time, and I know you know that it's wrong to oppose something just because it isn't ITN/R (aka most things) rather than evaluate its own merits. Kingsif (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was marked as ITN/R, which I recognised from the green tint. Kingsif has since changed it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the implication of that comment; as said, I never marked it ITN/R. You have also not expanded on whether you think only ITN/R items can possibly get posted, with an unexplained !oppose. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The claim that this was the first final to see someone receive a red card needs a citation, but other than that the quality looks good and it seem significant so support when citation provided. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. I’ve commented out the uncited statement mentioned by above.  Schwede  66  16:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article subject is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion at ITN and I see no remaining issues with article quality at this time. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. If it has been postponed in previous years, perhaps it's time for the Women's Rugby Union World Cup to be included as ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially given how they've changed the marketing/promotion so that the men's and women's are essentially different tournaments under the same competition. A similar thing has happened in Rugby League. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked item as Ready as all concerns and opposes have either been resolved or are unexplained. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the "Route to the final" section contains nested tables, which is a violation of MOS:ACCESS as it confuses screen readers. This should be fixed before the blurb is posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved now, with mini-tables and prose. Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: John Aniston

 * Support Death just announced today. Article is sufficiently sourced. Star   Mississippi  22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose some citations missing in the Personal life section and the filmography is entirely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've commented out the uncited bits (I can see a case for their complete removal, as they don't strike me as improtant) ; the article now seems good to go . Curbon7 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Take-backsies. Curbon7 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Filmography section has zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sir Ian Barker

 * Support, although consider merging the Personal life and Honours sections as both are rather short. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keith Levene

 * Oppose . There are two CN tags in the prose and the discography is largely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The discography sect is fine now. Levene was a very influential guitarist Ceoil (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All referencing issues now resolved. Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support not in an ideal state, but now fully cited. Have fleshed out the lead. Article now includes the cited claim "one of the most influential guitarists of all time" and 28 refs. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks ready to post. Thriley (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rajni Kumar

 * Support. Article is good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sven-Bertil Taube

 * Support One of Sweden's most notable artists from an equally notable artist family. Article is in nice shape thanks to BabbaQ. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  14:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: "During the 1980s and 1990s, Taube starred in a number of Swedish films and television series, while keeping his music career alive." could do with a citation; the filmography includes only three entries for those two decades, one of which is British, so does not support the claim. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Films added and claim reinstated. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * +Support. No outstanding issues I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Clearly ready to be posted. Jusdafax (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gallagher

 * Oppose. Lots of citations needed, most explicitly tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have cited everything in the main body. All that is left is the flimography section. Thriley (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Conroy

 * Oppose. A few more citations needed in the prose, lots more in the filmography and the awards is completely unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support He is the most iconic voice of Batman. Djprasadian (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully support 212.187.94.178 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing that matters for ITN is that the article is of sufficient quality. This one is not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the Filmography tables still lacking in footnotes. Zero footnotes in the Awards and Nominations section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * article appears ready. Filmography almost entirely complete. There are only very minor roles without citation. Thriley (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the uncited people on the tribute section. I don’t want that to prevent this from being posted. Thriley (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted 6 hours late.... --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) FTX bankruptcy

 * Support The fall of crypto is big news. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:PROSELINE in FTX (company) needs to be addressed before posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's been, on and off, the top story on FT, Bloomberg, and the WSJ for days. — Mainly 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bankruptcy is one of those ways that companies regularly get out of a bad financial situation. This is standard business news, and given the finicky nature of cryptocurrency on WP, we should be very wary of this stuff. --M asem (t) 17:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. If Microsoft or Apple or Lockheed Martin went bankrupt I'm fairly sure those would be posted. Crypto is an area of strong interest, so much so that editing about it is under sanctions. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end of a company or the like, though it does imply it is in financial trouble. It's like an athlete stating they are retiring, something that can always be undone. M asem (t) 18:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think we should post notable retirements too. Something should not need to be written in stone or otherwise irreversible to be posted. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FTX is not a company on the level of Microsoft, Apple, or Lockheed Martin. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm not familiar with crypto, from what I read, this was a very important company in that world. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose bankruptcies aren't really ITN material in my opinion. FTXs value was overinflated in the first place. Moreover, it seems like we don't really post bankruptcies. Previously nominated were: Sri Lanka in July 2022, Whiting Petrolium in April 2020, Thomas Cook and Purdue Pharma in September 2019, PG&E in January 2019, Sears in October 2018, Gibson in May 2018, Toys R Us in March 2018. None of those were posted. And in the end, Sri Lanka, Whiting Petrolium (merged with Chord Energy), PG&E, Sears, Gibson, and Toys R Us successfully exited bankruptcy and continue to do business. YD407OTZ (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't post something until we do. Consensus can change. If it doesn't, fair enough, but we have to start somewhere. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose bankruptcies aren't necessarily notable, especially for a company in what's still largely a niche industry. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * óppose per above. Not of earth shattering importance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot find in the ITN criteria where it says "earth shattering importance" is required. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle Interesting story and I'm seeing quite a lot of coverage. The article does need improving though, to fix the PROSELINE issues mentioned above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Bankruptcy of a company, especially one of the largest in cryptocurrency, would be rather an interesting story to be posted, story had a lot of coverage. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A reasonable blurb (major event in business, global significance) which will certainly help un-gatekeep blurbing. Curbon7 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaning oppose - I can see both sides on this, but, per Masem, I don't think this is notable enough for ITn PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don’t see any major impact that could cause a financial crisis, demand a policy response or leave millions of people decepted. A three-year old company employing 300 people with an annual revenue of $1 billion and a minor market share in its industry goes bankrupt. That’s what it is. Sorry, it’s not Arthur Andersen or Lehman Brothers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Although not a bank like the Lehman brothers and causing a crash to the USD, FTX was the second largest crypto exchange, and its bankruptcy of over $16billion and has had a profound effect on the entire crypto market. The recent crypto crash is a result of this and something of this caliber is likely to receive a response from the SEC on regulation. I think the shock-factor with this bankruptcy is that this company was levering funds it didn't have and that those involved in the crypto community did not think a crypto organisation of this size would become insolvent like this.  GR 86  (<b style="color:#000">📱</b>) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Nothing official, and the cryptocurrency market is something practically irrelevant in the "real" world moved by "somewhat peculiar" people. _-_Alsor (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * debatable per the IMF  GR 86  (<b style="color:#000">📱</b>) 16:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The collapse of the second largest crytocurrency exchange is an event of international significance and will have an impact broadly on cryptocurrency around the world. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - this is big news, and the scale of this is larger than MF Global and around the size of the Madoff ponzi. This is not just some company going bankrupt. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Recapture of Kherson

 * Weak Oppose good faith nom. A fairly significant development militarily, but already covered in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This highlights a different article than Ongoing, which is about the broader conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a reliable source, but if something actually comes of this, I might support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Like nom, I don't support blurbing every progress update of the war, but this does have special geopolitical significance as Kherson was the only regional capital captured by Russian forces at any point. The Kip (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose See ongoing, It's not unexpected or unusual for territory to change hands in wars. We didnt blurb other victories/ends of battles like the fall of Mariupol either. The end of a battle dont merit a burb, the end of the war probably would. The war stories that we did blurb were blurbed for reasons that reflect a particular significance of an event in a historical context. (bucha warcrimes, and the Moskva being the worst loss the Russian Navy has suffered since WWII) ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am   KING   17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is historically significant, the recapture of the only captured regional capital. I haven't understood the general resistance to posting things here that's developed in recent years. What are we afraid of? 331dot (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Donetsk and Luhansk city say hi. It's not the only captured regional capital under Russian control, even if not recently captured. In terms of significance, I would argue the defeat in Kharkiv and retreat of Kyiv are just as significant; as was the fall of Mariupol being Ukraine's last holdout on the Sea of Azov but we didn't blurb those, since at the core they just represent conclusions of smaller battles in a bigger war which is covered in ongoing; Kherson isn't even fully liberated since most of the land of the Oblast is on the other side of the Dnieper. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   18:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll want to tell the BBC that, that's where I got that claim, and it's in their headline right now. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC's headline can be whatever, 1 source doesn't dictate reality necessarily. BBC's headline has the caveat "since the war began" which is more accurate, But it certainly isn't the only controlled territorial capital. Even Sievierodonetsk which was the de-facto Ukrainian capital of Luhansk before the war is captured. Im not denying that its a major victory for 1 waring party and a defeat for the other, but there are lots of those occurrences in this war, and they need not all be blurbed, since thats why it is in ongoing; else we'd be doing in on a monthly basis. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   19:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the monarch above me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is the only regional capital captured by Russia and control of the city essentially had become the symbol of Russian occupation. Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by ongoing, not an indication of a key event of the war. --M asem (t) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC says "Today was a hugely consequential moment in a war now in its ninth month". So if it's not a key event, they need to fire their journalists and start over. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Seems to be quite a notable event in the conflict, on par with the retreat from Kyiv after the Russians screwed up badly. This is a major defeat in the southern region of the conflict. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant development. 142.122.91.106 (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose already covered in ongoing not need to repeat it. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is decent. It's in the news. Cherson is big city. Also there are no Putin's forces on right side of Dnieper anymore. Seems pretty big news. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean technically there is a Russian military presence west of the Dnieper.... in Smolensk, but I'll see myself out. I still don't the end of this battle is any more significant to get blurbed from the end of every other battle in this war that never made the cut.. Russia ceded far less land back than they did when they withdrew from either Kharkiv or Kyiv this time around. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ôppose. Covered by Ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've already decided not to post anything related to the war. Banedon (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * where was this decision? clearly not the case since other war related developments have been posted; the blurbs we haven't had so far are the "belligerent x captures y"; which is basically what this is. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   00:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, no we didn't. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant Development, the retaking of an regional capital in an area occupied for over 8 months would be major news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support biggest victory since Kiev. We posted the fall of a bridge, this is a far bigger event.
 * <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ☎️ 📄 04:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We really shouldn't be posting a blow by blow commentary on this conflict while ignoring other conflicts around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Important event, but this is covered by ongoing. There wasn't war in Crimea when Ukraine bombed the bridge, so we blurbed that.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 06:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia occupies Crimea, and Ukraine has long stated its intentions to both reclaim it and destroy the bridge. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also there was long series of destroyed military targets in Crimea long before Kerch Bridge explosion. So arguing there "wasn't war in Crimea" seams like uninformed opinion to me.--Jenda H. (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning Support - Pretty split on this one, but we posted the Crimean Bridge explosion, and this is a much larger development in the war, possibly the largest in the last 6 months. Could have big consequences. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per 331 dot Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose On-going. I would rather see a blurb when the war ends. – robertsky (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate on my oppose. I have not followed the pace of the war blow by blow, nor being an arm-chair general/amateur war analyst pouring over OSINT, but the fight definitely isn't over on both sides, the lines may change again for one reason or another. Hence, until the war is over in either side's favour or some other events giving the fight a long pause (i.e. North Korea vs South Korea who are still technically at war but under a long time truce), I don't think we should post such news up (like I didn't think, and still do not, that it was appropriate to post the Crimean bridge explosion). (WP:CRYSTAL here, and who knows that we be slapped in our face if there's a sudden surge somewhere somehow on the Russian side reversing the capture.) – robertsky (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Shanes (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The BBC is calling this the most important development since the retreat from Kyiv’s suburbs and that seems like a reasonable description to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely an historic turn of events. This recapture marks a significant change on this war.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per BBC and others. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article is of poor quality, being mostly proseline based on unreliable, partisan sources such as Russian milbloggers. It makes fanciful points such as listing Syria as a participant while ignoring more significant factors such as the weather and mud. And the final scope of this southern counteroffensive remains to be seen; "it ain't over 'til it's over". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm with opposers in noting this news event is covered in ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The BBC (and other agencies) are indicating that this is the most significant event since Russia's failed Kyiv offensive. Ukraine pushing Russia out of a swath of what Russia claims to have annexed is a major development and warrants inclusion as a line-item on ITN. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposeit is in ongoing events and it is rather normal for territory to change hands during war.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support--UkrainianCossack (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolf Schneider

 * Oppose . Citations needed for the last part of the first paragraph in the Life section and the entries in the Literature section which lack ISBNs. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All the issues are now resolved and no new ones have been introduced. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I plan to improve, but won't get to it until later today. Patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * done - not sure if Sprachpapst is "godfather of language" (literally would be pope), please check, Thryduulf and all --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The issues raised by Thryduulf have been fixed. Renewal6 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Siddhaanth Vir Surryavanshi

 * Oppose the Television section is only about a third referenced, the award is unreferenced and the very short prose section is also missing a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending a few more citations User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has almost single-handedly cleaned up most of the ref issues. Only two or three more items to cover. The Kip (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that stubs are not eligible for RD. This short wikibio probably needs another 100 words or so to attain start class. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The second and third paragraphs of the Career section still need additional references. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ . ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourcing and article form appear to be sufficient. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Nepal earthquake

 * Oppose, small scale. Our earthquake lists only consider 6.0 and above as significant. Stephen 23:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. Not a high number of casualties either. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, even if article quality were up to scratch, as it's a local event with no wider impact and no broader notability beyond the region.  Schwede 66  02:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring any significant increase in death toll. --M asem (t) 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Small scale both in terms of death toll and literal scale. MyriadSims (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Ongoing removal: Mahsa Amini protests

 * Oppose No major protests doesn't mean there aren't protests. The name is just 'Mahsa Amini protests', and doesn't specify major protests. And besides, the article itself states that they are "an ongoing series of protests" MyriadSims (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @MyriadSims: They're ongoing, but they're not in the news anymore. I've seen more coverage of the hypersonic missile claim. RAN1 (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per MyraidSims <span style="background: #ffcc00; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"> 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 20:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support while the protests are going, they have lacked the eye of international coverage as they were at the start. The items added to the timeline article are minor facets and major changes in the protests. --M asem (t) 21:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Now Oppose as I am seeing a decent news bump in international coverage though as a reminder, the article (or at least the timeline) needs to have significant updates to keep this in ongoing. --M asem (t) 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The Protesting in Iran is, although still ongoing, lacking major changes and had no major protesting in the past week. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While the movement is slowing down, there are still widespread protests and civil unrest in Iran right now. This hasn't gone away. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – I'm still seeing some decent updates to the article in the past week, though the development of the article has certainly slowed down. I think it's currently still a good ongoing item, but if updates to the article slow down even more it's probably no longer appropriate. The article currently discusses November 5 a lot, and that's more recent than half of the ITN blurbs, if such a comparison means anything. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Schulz

 * Comment I don't know what (the final sentence of the lead) means so I can't tell whether it is supported by the body of the article or not. Other than that, I see no issues. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ... nor do I, - I found that sentence, and hesitate to remove the work of others. It's exactly one of the things I meant saying "not yet where I want it". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave him more lead, which made that strange sentence obsolete. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I now also gave him a few more details. Someone nice added 3 obits (in German) which could be used further, but I have no more time today, sorry, last day of vacation, and travel tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * could do with a better source, the original German source uses "Kündigung" which can be translated equally as "dismissed" or "resigned" and the context doesn't make one more or less likely than than the other. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. That issue has been resolved and I've not spotted any others. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Operation Barkhane

 * Support. Significant geopolitical event. The citation for the withdrawal used the deprecated parenthetical format, but I've reformatted it. There are some proseline issues, but not enough to disqualify it. POV issues should also be looked into (as is often the case, the criticism section presents serious POV concerns). I prefer the first blurb. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is now past tense the article needs a few edits to achieve this. Also the infobox has quite a bit of bloat - for instance Charles III is listed under "commanders and leaders" which is a case of "technically I see what you are doing but in reality it looks silly". --LukeSurlt c 16:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article could use a little more information about the end of this operation. The sentence just prior to the one announcing the end of the operation in the article seems to suggest that there are still French troops there, and that the operation is being reformulated, so this could use a little more clarification.  Spencer T• C 01:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment article missing aftermath/conclusion and it is unclear what they did. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - per Thebiguglyalien PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Seems to be mostly a regrouping: "Around 3,000 French soldiers remain in Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger. There are no immediate plans for a reduction in numbers." The insurgencies in the Sahel and Mahgreb continue. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant geopolitical event, indeed. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting, well sourced, informative. Jusdafax (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a significant geopolitical event that substantially impacts the security situation in the Sahel. This warrants inclusion at ITN. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see this marked as "ready" but not seeing the level of expansion for this to be ready IMO. I did leave a comment above stating that more clarification is needed, so will leave to another admin to assess. At present, all the article has for the past 3 months is: French forces completed their withdrawal from Mali on 15 August.[13] The French military stated that 3,000 troops will remain in the Sahel region as part of Operation Barkhane and added that it was not ending, but being reformulated.[14] However on November 9, Macron announced the end of Operation Barkhane and stated that some French troops will remain in the region under new arrangements. More clarification is needed regarding what "new arrangements" actually means.  Spencer T• C 02:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "(READY!)" now removed from the header. --PFHLai (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Joachim Klein

 * Support. Citation and coverage are sufficient for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One citation needed tag (just added), that fact is not sourced in the linked article either. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it looks like PFHLai has done a good job in tidying up the article and checking all the citations so I've added them to the updaters. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bao Tong

 * Oppose. There are quite a few citations needed, including for some potentially controversial claims (e.g. "His wife, pushed to the ground by a policeman, received a bone fracture in her spine that resulted in her being hospitalized for three months."). I've orange tagged two sections to this effect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs.  --PFHLai (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Still. --PFHLai (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kirill Stremousov

 * Weak Oppose Seems mostly good to go, but the bit about him shooting someone with a traumatic pistol is both not explained or cited. Once that's resolved it should be good to go. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 19:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major figure in politics of Occupied Ukraine, article looks good. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I've sourced and slightly clarified the bit about the traumatic pistol (based on a translation of that source and of the Ukrainian Wikipedia), not my knowledge), however my oppose is because the latter half of the biography is just proseline with some single-sentence paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gal Costa

 * Oppose. Not nearly enough citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. She was a major figure in Brazilian music. See here and here. Hopefully, someone can beef up the cites so that she can be on the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Discography is almost entirely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Eight {cn} tags remaining in the prose. Discography and filmography still largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Treacher

 * Support, article looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The prose could use some improvement, but it's sufficient for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Yes I supported above, but this has been ready for over 24 hours without objection. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tom Owen

 * Oppose the article gives the impression that those parts without explicit citations are sourced only to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficient citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Only 3 footnotes for 300+ words of prose. The list of tv roles is also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leslie Phillips

 * Oppose Sourcing needed in some statements throughout the prose as well as the Filmography section. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm currently trying to expand it but issues with my computer are slowing me down. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently referenced now IMHO. Time to go ahead, Spicemix (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose is well cited but the filmography still needs a lot of work. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The back half of the Filmography section is still largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's ready to go now, all filmography sourced with any that can't be removed. Would be great to get Leslie on the homepage. Humbledaisy (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. I agree it's up to scratch now, well done. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Bhatnagar

 * Support it is short, but what's there is good enough for ITN imo. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juan Pizarro Navarrete

 * Support. No obvious issues. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 United States elections

 * Oppose. No reason these elections should be posted to Ongoing. We don't do that with any other elections. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DarkSide. It'll be over and done with tomorrow, even if not every race has a final result. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That is not what Ongoing is for. How very droll. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Edward C. Prescott

 * Oppose there are multiple paragraphs with out any references and one of the larger ones has just a single source. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to insufficient citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not enough citation yet. Alex-h (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a few footnote-free paragraphs. The Honours and awards section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing:COP27

 * Wait and post any decision made at the end of the conference. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. I think its been better to write a blurb at the end and summarize key points they took away. --M asem (t) 13:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not think this is suitable for Ongoing. A blurb should be nominated at the end of the conference with the outcome.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb - Notable event, but not enough for ongoing. Might want to wait before the conference is over too PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ongoing, support blurb - not suitable for ongoing, but I think the start of the conference is sufficient for a blurb. We can always update/repost if there is a significant outcome 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:D5E4:A424:6F4C:88DF (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a lot of these summits, lots of big promises are made, photos are taken, handshakes exchanged. None of it ever materialises into anything of note; then everyone takes their private jet back home, adding not reducing the carbon footprint globally. I cannot see how this is any more notable than any other routine political event or summit, which happen all the time, regularly. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, wait to consider a blurb. Let's see if the negotiators can come up with a substantive agreement, beyond the usual waffle about good intentions and some insufficient national pledges. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close. We can consider a blurb as and when the conference closes, but certainly not for the opening, and it's also not the sort of major frequently updated story that we put in ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jake Crouthamel

 * Comment: Close, 1 CN tag remaining and "Head coaching record" section needs a reference as his season-by-season record is not mentioned in the prose paragraph about his college coaching career.  Spencer T• C 06:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added references (though, in the past, we've never required head coaching tables to be referenced). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Going to go ahead and post to RD because there's less than 24 hours on the nom, ping me if issues. Best,  Spencer T• C 01:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Boyce, Baron Boyce

 * Comment the Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal and coat of arms need sourcing (and the latter isn't something I'd hold up posting over), but other than that the article looks to be in very good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've reffed the medal and the heraldic descriptions. The orders, life peerage etc. is mentioned and sourced elswhere in the article, the banner drawing seems to have been made from the picture taken in the chapel and also shown in the article - Dumelow (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All looks good now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, well cited article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * SupportArticle looks ok. Alex-h (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Fuel blockade in Haiti ended amid crisis

 * Comment: It's unclear whether the blockade has actually ended or if this is just an announcement. If the situation is resolved, then I definitely support. If this is just an announcement, then I say wait until something changes on the ground. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the CNN article linked above, "Haiti National Police spokesperson Gary Desrosiers also confirmed that the Varreux terminal is now under police control. The terminal, located in southwest Port-au-Prince, supplies most of the oil in Haiti. It has been blocked by G9 gang members for the past six weeks, choking off access to fuel in the country. G9 abandoned Varreux terminal over the weekend, one high-level security source told CNN." Reuters and BBC News also report that Haitian police have taken control of the terminal, with the former making note of drone images that appear to show that access to the terminal's entrance is now clear. — Matthew  - (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional update: Agence France-Presse reported earlier today that fuel distribution in Haiti has resumed. — Matthew  - (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional additional update: the Associated Press has reported that gas stations have reopened. — Matthew  - (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Support It seems like the blockade has ended, which is a significant development. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article updated, seems like a notable change to the story.  Spencer T• C 01:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is of sufficient quality and this sort of event is highly significant for Haiti. It's received broad international attention and I believe it warrants inclusion on ITN. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 01:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Peter McNab

 * Oppose due to aforementioned need of citation work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a few unsourced paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 NASCAR Cup Series

 * Can anything be done about that HUGE block of proseline related to team changes in the article? That's extremely unbecoming and definitely not our best work. --M asem (t) 02:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see there are prose paragraphs summarising every race, however those are all based on the official NASCAR.com reports which are not an independent source. Could some citations be added to reports in independent media? Some of the writing is clunky - lots of short sentences and ungrammatical phrases like 'got into the wall' - so could do with a careful copyedit. I agree with Masem that the 'changes' section is excessive, that should be shortened or split to a separate article. None of these are fatal issues, but it would be good to fix them before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried proposing this months ago but got no support. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 05:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No opposition either, so I don't see a reason not to do it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think this can be posted with some minor clean-up, but there has been only one edit that made any meaningful improvement to the article since it was nominated. It would probably take a hour to sort everything out; do none of the page authors want to do that? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "Changes" sections is filled with announcements of what so-and-so "would" or "may" do. It needs to be updated to what actually happened or not.  Results section is unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. RingoSB (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quality is not there for me. It's way too long and over-detailed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality as per WP:ITNQUALITY, I don't think there are grounds to hold up an article because it is way too long or over-detailed. This isn't an article review. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article does not currently meet WP:ITNQUALITY, due to the presence of orange clean up tags. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Far below the highest levels of 4-wheeled motorsport. Yes I noticed it is ITN/R, but I don't think it should be Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The NASCAR Cup Series is literally the "" in NASCAR (NASCAR). What are you talking about? Curbon7 (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The objection was to this not being among the highest level of "4-wheeled motorsport" which is a lot broader than just NASCAR so your response while true does not rebut the claim. Looking at the Motorsport article it seem useful to treat the three major divisions of four-wheel racing (open-wheel, on-road closed-wheel and off-road closed-wheel) independently as there is no reliable way to do otherwise given the vast differences between them. NASCAR is unquestionably both the top US-based series and one of the top worldwide series of on-road closed-wheel racing - indeed it is arguable that NASCAR is the highest level of on-road closed wheel racing in the world. Regardless of this though, James Lewis Bedford below rightly points out that whatever the veracity of the claim, it is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Top of this page on, subsection 'Please do not...', bullet point 5 – "Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page." Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Azadi March-II

 * Comment I added this on behalf of a user who attempted to post this but I don't think they knew how to do so correctly, so I removed their entry and posted this instead. This isn't an endorsement in any way of the content or merit of the nomination itself though. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub and around half of it is a summary of the assassination attempt, which we've already covered. The Kip (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is poor, very little information on the event itself, which means it does not convey the importance or notability of the event. Most of it is from another article which was already nominated and posted. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Contrary to the nomination statement, this appears to be a political campaign rather than a revolution. Lots of countries have active political campaigns at present, and I am not convinced that this is particularly out of the ordinary. If it leads to a change in national leadership, then it deserves a mention in the blurb for that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's long-term unrest in Pakistan, this is just a small factor of it, in addition to quality issues above. --M asem (t) 13:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose political rally. The main significance of this was the assassination attempt against Khan, which we already posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above not really a "political revolution". Just another protest in this world. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, An internal conflict. not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Mahsa Amini protests? Curbon7 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bit of a difference between the mass-scale violence we're seeing between the Iranian government and protestors versus what appears to be a mostly peaceful, fairly limited march. The Kip (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The protests in Pakistan have turned deadly. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. The figure of 4 protestor deaths in the article is wholly uncited. The only cited death is that of a journalist, which was already established as accidental rather than violent. One can likewise be attributed to the assassination attempt, but that's still three unaccounted for.
 * 2. Even if that is the genuine figure, over 300 people (by conservative estimates) have been killed in Iran, versus four in the Azadi March. Not to invoke WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but that’s not even remotely comparable. The Kip (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Imran Khan also said they will siege Islamabad, which might turn notable. ImprovetheArabicUnicode (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Kip (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This could be very notable or this could turn out to be not much. I think the next few days and maybe weeks will tell. This has already lasted longer than the Azadi March earlier this year. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 21:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Precision Air Flight 494

 * Support - Similar events are not common and this is getting wide news coverage. Added altblurb2.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This incident is getting global media attention and this might be the deadliest air disaster in Tanzania. Layah50♪  (  喋ってください!  )  16:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I do not see any major citation issues in the article. Vida0007 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lacks sufficient notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is up to scratch. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There has been a desire to loosen up blurbing a bit more. This is a common sense addition. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is decent. Topic is notable and has sufficient coverage. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support A notable and tragic disaster. It's important that we cover events in the developing world to prevent US-centric bias. And a thought experiment regarding notability: If this happened in the US, Canada, or Europe, there would probably be no question to the notability of the incident.-TenorTwelve (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 MotoGP World Championship

 * Support – article has been updated and there are no quality concerns. Should be ready to go. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is good to go. Vida0007 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article seems fine on a quick skim. On ITNR and the blurb is good. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) World Series

 * Comment Alt2 is more standard and concise.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until they add the Peña picture. 2601:2C6:4B82:B1A0:206F:4EF9:BB75:AFDF (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have one, and we aren't going to wait for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we don't have a Peña picture, maybe a Dusty Baker picture? With his win, he is the oldest manager to win the World Series. (I am slightly biased because I am a Cubs fan and he used to be the Cubs manager.) -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, managers and head coaches of winning teams has been pictured before.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like a comprehensive article with plenty of prose on each game. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few unreferenced paragraphs, one sentence in the background section needs further clarification and the table on the broadcasting ratings lacks an update.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are an unsourced sentence at the end of a few paragraphs, not (fully) "unreferenced paragraphs".—Bagumba (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, they need sources.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I clarified the sentence that needed to be clarified and deleted the unneeded unsourced sentences added at the end of sourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Boo! I can't believe TWO of my teams lost the championship on the same day... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Nice work by everyone. Marking ready. Ktin (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. All the issues have been addressed. Vida0007 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article looks good to go. Also, can you insert Dusty Baker's picture on this article, because he finally won the first World Series as a manager and the oldest manager to do so? -- Allen (talk / ctrb) 14:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) MLS Cup

 * Oppose not ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a weird rationale. There's no rule saying that an event must be ITNR to be in the news. Tube·of·Light 02:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But perfectly reasonable for a subject as overrepresented in ITNR as football is. There's already seven guaranteed blurbs in most years, and we consistently refuse, every year, to blurb US sports championships that are more significant by far.  Oppose. —Cryptic 06:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already seven guaranteed blurbs in most years...: Fewer are actually posted, because some of those domestic league ITNRs ultimately dont meet minimum page quality. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't MLS Cup be bolded in the blurb since it is the main subject? Tube·of·Light 02:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a more standard sports alt blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No article quality concerns. In fact, many of the annual MLS Cup pages are WP:GAs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the spectator numbers (22,384) tell me MLS isn't notable enough for ITN, especially compared to other leagues. YD407OTZ (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The attendance was at the stadium's capacity.  Sounder Bruce  19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but this simply means the league isn't taken seriously enough by its organizers or developers (or the interest isn't there). For reference, the 2022 Belgian Cup Final (a second-tier competition in Belgium considering the top league is, as common in Europe, points-based) drew 42,500 spectators. The MLS Cup final is supposed to be the pinnacle of soccer in the USA, yet barely reaches half this number. Perhaps interest will develop in the future, and we can consider it. However, the leagues we currently post (Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga) are far, far bigger than the Belgian cup. YD407OTZ (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Lack of sporting merit/quality Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think a league where famous players go to play for money at the end of their careers can be considered a top competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - No longer solely the case, as MLS takes in youth players from both Americas and develops them for export to Europe more often than it signs European near-retirees.  Sounder Bruce  19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the quality is far below the big European domestic leagues and is similar in quality to second-tier competitions in the big European countries. It would be worse quality than the medium-level European leagues eg France, Russia, Netherlands and Portugal also Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good. Match summary which is often the missing piece in many of these sporting events is also present. Tournament meets threshold expectations for homepage. Good to go. Ktin (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The following should be probably be clarified for North American editors (which is the major reason why it fails to regularly gain consensus on either ITN or ITNR): Unlike the "big four" major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, MLS is not the world's top men's professional league in its sport like the NFL (for American football), MLB (for baseball), NBA (for basketball) and NHL (for ice hockey) are. MLS falls below Premier League, La Liga, and Bundesliga in terms of featuring the world's top association football players. ITN should not post every single domestic association football league around the world. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Far below! Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For a specific year's sporting competition that is not an ITN/R, I would need to see something unique about that particular edition that makes it considerably notable in comparison to prior years. I don't see that here. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ales, I do not believe the MLS is noteworthy enough to merit ITN inclusion. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: MLS is neither a significant league compared to other American sports leagues nor is it a significant league in comparison to other soccer/football competitions around the world.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Coy Gibbs

 * Oppose needs more citations, and a replacement for the permanently dead reference 5 ("Coy Gibbs returns to racing"). Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead has too much personal info that should be in the body instead. Unsourced too. Also not clear he was involved in football unless you already knew what the Washington Redskins were.—Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from a few {cn} tags in the prose, the tabulated data in the "Motorsports career results" need sourcing, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Alegre Salazar

 * Weak support Short but meets minimum standards; his political career did not appear to last very long. Article could use a sentence explaining what his Denuncia Ciudadana radio program covered.  Spencer T• C 02:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Spencer. Also, if the outcome of the domestic violence allegation was reported it should be included in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support as well. This is good to go, even if the article is painfully short. Vida0007 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aaron Carter

 * Wait Quite sad passing at such a young age. Having said that, 7 CN tags currently, so those need to be resolved before posting. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 23:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait As above, some CN tags that need fixing but happy to approve once sorted XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Support Everything looks good to go now XxLuckyCxX (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch, right in the childhood. I've fixed up several citation needed tags. There are 3 left, confined to the Tours section. Support otherwise. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, then support: Still a couple citations that need fixing up but once that's done post it. PolarManne (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Unfortunately I've had to add several more citation needed tags, and the entire filmography section is unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Already sourced most of the parts that were tagged, except for the 1998 Eurasian Tour (which I could not find any) and his filmography. Vida0007 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Update: Already sourced the filmography and the tour. Vida0007 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything now appears sourced, but do need to keep an eye on it as it seems to be attracting edits from people who can't or don't want to separate speculation from fact regarding his cause of death. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici
Oppose for now - I saw two cn tags and a number of other unsourced claims. I think we blurbed Angola's former president when he died, so why not Malta?  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 16:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Blurbing is a little more complicated than that. It's not a case of Angola vs Malta. And just being a head of state/government, etc. may not be enough. Please feel free to propose a blurb and make your case. However, the wikibio ought to have the pertinent contents to back up the case. I hope I am not being disrespectful to the dead, but looking at the single-line intro of this wikibio, I'm not sure we have a blurb-able candidate here. --PFHLai (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 10:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose until all direct quotations are cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seven {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ten {cn} tags now. --PFHLai (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian café fire

 * Oppose - A tragedy, but I don't think it is notable enough for ITN PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence of enduring notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You do know what the name of this page is, right? In the news. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This may not even meet the basics of WP:NEVENT. Things make the news every day, but if there's no long-term coverage of that event after that day, we probably shouldn't have an article on it. M asem (t) 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is now nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Kostroma café fire.  Sandstein   21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not denying that, it was just a silly way TBUA presented that argument. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that NOTNEWS is poorly named. It should definitely apply to In the News, even if their names seem contradictory. Enduring notability is the standard as to whether an event should be included on Wikipedia, and a higher standard of enduring notability should apply to blurbs on the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a small-scale domestic disaster (and caused by stupidity, apparently), so not really the type of stuff we post. --M asem (t) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A stub that is at AfD - zero chance of getting posted until those two things are resolved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bambang Subianto

 * Support It's been a minute since I've seen your RD nominations, but as always, solid quality: good depth of coverage, fully referenced, AGF on Indonesian-language references. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 06:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Igor Sypniewski

 * The honours section needs sourcing, but other than that I see no problems. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything now appears sourced and no other problems have been introduced since my previous comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Update added a lot more citations, some content added too, overall I put in a lot of work into this article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I have seen no other issues here. Vida0007 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Balakh Sher Mazari

 * Oppose. Orange tagged for more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's short but it is now good enough, the sourcing issues having been resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is citation-needed tagged. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs work but it is good for ITN Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Butz

 * Support. Article is well sourced and long enough. The paragraph on his death may need some fixing. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 17:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC); edited 06:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article has apparently been edited since the above review and now contained multiple unsourced statements, which I've now tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed all the cn tags. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support all the issues seem to be resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead is too short relative to his accomplishments. No sourced prose of Super Bowl championships, All-Pro selections, and Ring of Fame shown in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking, as issues look resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead section is too short. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Lead section now much longer. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Chagos Archipelago negotiations

 * Oppose until next year Wait until some significant development (e.g. the Chagossians being allowed back) comes out of these negotiations; a settlement is expected to be reached next year. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If the Chagossians are able to return, I believe that would be notable for a blurb when/if it happens. Another relevant article would be Forced expulsion of the Chagossians. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't post announcements of things that politicians/governments say they intend to do in future, we post when they actually do them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If one of the sides agrees to withdraw from the territory, that would be the right news for posting. This mere announcement of negotiations doesn't portend that the conflict will be resolved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absolutely love this in-depth article, but it spends extremely little time describing the significance of recent developments. Nothing here for ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per mellohi PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose merely talking. Lots of diplomatic discussions go nowhere. If something major is agreed, then it will be worth considering for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the article is a bit of a mess - information is not in logical or chronological order, there are maintenance tags etc. The update is only 2 sentences, that say nothing more than the information in the proposed blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose wait until further development Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Thryduulf, Mellohi, and all of our other noms about "intent to do something" that have failed.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Guy

 * Support. The citation issues have been addressed. RIP possibly the greatest punter ever. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok so, it seems that BeanieFan11 has essentially cited the entire article so I believe that it is ok for Recent Death now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support and mark ready. The article is now in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rm ready, still remaining CN tags in article.  Spencer T• C 07:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strike based on updates and spot check.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Resolved all of the CN tags. Article is now fully cited.   please reassess based on recent changes.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing is squared away. Marking as ready.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Attempted assassination of Imran Khan

 * Support - Highly notable. Added myself as an updater and added altblurb2. Quantum XYZ (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Not usually favorable to unsuccessful attempts but this is part of a larger story regarding Pakistani politics that has already produced blurbs so I'll lean in favor. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I will note that my blurb preference is AltII. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, Not a very notable event. Alex-h (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Not exactly sure if an assassination attempt can be ITN but the article looks good enough for it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - High quality article, major event in Pakistan. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - It is an international and notable news. Contributor008 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support the non-posting of Kirchner recently was a mistake Bumbubookworm (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Someone attempted to assassinate a former prime minister and famous cricketer. If it gets put on ITN, I would prefer the second alternative to be the blurb. Djprasadian (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What variant of English refers to a shooting as a "firing"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think by 'second alternative' he means alt2. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If Khan had been assassinated I think that would be important enough - and we posted Shinzo Abe - but I'm not convinced that an unsuccessful attempt is suitable. A deplorable act, but a non-life threatening injury to a former leader isn't the most impactful event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks good and is on the news  4me689  (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It was a failed assassination attempt at country's most popular leader currently leading a long march against government. USaamo (t@lk) 19:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is well-sourced, but I would want to propose another alternative blurb which is a bit similar to ALT2: An assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan kills one and injures nine others, including Khan. Vida0007 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. A horrible crime, to be sure, but thankfully he wasn't actually assassinated, and he isn't currently the sitting Prime Minister, as noted by Modest Genius above.VR talk 00:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Wouldn't be anywhere nearly as significant if the context isn't considered. Specifically, an assassination attempt on a former national leader, whilst they are campaigning to be reinstated, as part of the aftermath of a major crisis in the country. Viewed as merely an assassination attempt on a former national leader, this isn't that important, but viewed in the context of what else is going on there, this is classic ITN material. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 05:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, we have a general support to post. Which blurb? Tone 10:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - added picture and added alt4 to reflect the fact that most sources now call it an assassination attempt, and that's the current title of the target article. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting alt4. --Tone 12:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, thats a good one. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Interest rate rises

 * Ongoing The word of the year was recently announced to be permacrisis and the world economy seems to be a big part of this. So, this would be best as an ongoing item. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A recession being listed as ongoing? I don't think we should for the same reason why we don't list Climate Change as ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Other respectable sites have such topical headings for ongoing news. For example, BBC News has Cost of Living · War in Ukraine · Coronavirus · Climate. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Andrew. I'd consider supporting this as an ongoing item, but not as a blurb when this has been going on for a while. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb but support ongoing for the inflation surge as a global story when the article is improved. Central banks started increasing interest rates earlier this year, but it's now that they reach the historical highs over the past 15 years. I don't think this is worth posting given that they've already announced further increases in the period to come. As an economist, I'd like to see more economic news in ITN, but the main problem is that the articles documenting economic stories are not in a format to receive regular updates. However, the inflation surge is a perfect example for a developing economic story affecting the whole world that should be posted onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality an article about "worldwide" inflation surge that mainly talks about inflation in the United States is an insult to intelligence. Andrew's idea of nominating it for Ongoing does not displease me. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for Ongoing Article is not as imbalanced as the above user pretends it to be. It has sizable sections discussing impacts in many regions of the world.  It isn't perfect, but the coverage is broad enough to avoid the sort of bias that Alsor says (incorrectly) that exists.  Certainly, more improvement is invited, but it passes the minimum quality standards for the main page.  Otherwise, it meets all of the requirements for ongoing.  1) it lacks a single blurbable headline 2) it is a longer term item that doesn't fit neatly into the standard ITN cycle timeframe and 3) It is receiving frequent, timely, and relevant updates.  Seems like a perfect ongoing target.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it not unbalanced? More than half of the article is about the United States. How can it not be unbalanced if there's only one section (as if it were "something extra") talking about the regional impact and only a few lines in the first three sections narrating very briefly the situation in the Eurozone, Saudi Arabia or Germany? _-_Alsor (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Is the way to go with this since this has been happening for a while. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do think this would make an interesting story for Ongoing, but isn't suitable for a blurb. However the article is heavily slanted towards the US - almost all the background section discusses events there, with other countries mentioned only as afterthoughts. Other parts of it haven't been updated with the latest news e.g. the UK interest rate rise. These are certainly fixable problems, but the article needs work before being postable. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we do post this as ongoing, at what point might it be removed? This could turn out to be the 'new normal', persisting for years. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When the inevitable recession is announced after Q4 earnings are posted mid-January? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very country-specific. Some economies are already in recession, while others are unlikely to enter one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose both blurb and ongoing like hurricane seasons, market changes are very difficult stories for ITN to cover as there is no clear start or end. Banks moving to shift interest rates is a sign of recession, but there is no clear point where this will become dire. I would also agree this is more a US issue and less global; it is not like past country money collapses. --M asem (t) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb either doesn't seem to be covered in the article, or it is largely stale, as the article doesn't mention interest rises in October or November this year. That being said, the article does look like it's actively being updated (October and November are frequently mentioned), so it is appropriate for Ongoing. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurb and ongoing per Masem particularly on account of the undefined nature of the issue. Also not a blurbable event, IMO, because the subject has no article and the blurb regards several separate events. Just too amorphous a situation to be ITN IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This event has been ongoing for a while, not really "news" if it's been happening for the last year, would it? Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing - Something big is happening economically that is almost impossible to ignore no matter what socioeconomic stratum you occupy.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing Clearly a significant story but difficult to fit in a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb but Support Ongoing - I don't feel that this should be a blurb but ongoing does seem reasonable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and ongoing - This shouldn't be ongoing for the same reason Climate Change and COVID-19 aren't ongoing. We've had this discussion before. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This topic is simply too broad PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until the issues in the article have been addressed (specifically in the first section). Once that is addressed, I would vote support to put this in the ongoing section but oppose the blurb. This is not blurb-worthy but notable enough to be considered as an ongoing event. While the inflation surge began last year, it looks like it only reached its peak this year and it is only now that the world economies are experiencing the full brunt of the surge. Vida0007 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - This is clearly an event with global consequences. Interstellarity (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing It's a large, global event and it definitely should be listed on ongoing.  echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  23:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Article not receiving regular, substantial updates to merit posting in the ongoing section. A close look at the article does not show substantial updates to the text with updates for October and November 2022.  Spencer T• C 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably not true; this has been updated in the past 5 days, much of which is relevant to data and events as late as the end of October. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, looking at the diff comparison, I'm still not seeing substantial updates. There's a couple sentences here and there about individual rate hikes, without significant other depth/detail. Other additions such as 2 sentences about the rate of inflation in Africa describes inflation rates from August. The additions about Big Oil appear to cover information from June and July, with one sentence about US President Biden threatening companies in late October. To me, doesn't meet the threshold of regular updating needed for an Ongoing article, but I understand that others may feel differently.  Spencer T• C 02:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't sure how to link this event to article content. 2021–2022 inflation surge is the underlying issue, but the specific event would have to be something like Fall 2022 interest rate rises (which is never going to exist) or something like History of Federal Open Market Committee actions which is dull and country specific. Unless someone has a better idea? --LukeSurlt c 10:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a separate article for the interest rates increase because the real developing story is the inflation surge around the world. If this gets posted onto ongoing, it will be the galloping inflation, not the rising interest rates (that's just a normal policy response during episodes of high inflation).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing, no comment on blurb - Small note to disclose I have made several edits to the 2021-2022 surge article, which seems to need continuous work. The outlook and forecast for global inflation is 8.8%, while previous relative peaks were 2008 with its US subprime crisis and 1994, another financial crisis. US Federal rate is also spiking, which is not normal. As a note to some other comments, inflation is not US-specific (although it is clearly responsible for global inflation), and the Eurozone is a massive land/population area. Asia is also seeing increased inflation though arguably to less alarming levels. The are crisis-ridden areas with extreme inflation but they are probably not part of the global inflation trend. Xenmorpha (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment In case this gets consensus for posting onto ongoing, which now seems very likely, it's important to note that the article has a long way to go in terms of quality. Firstly, the background section is incomplete and heavily focuses on events in the United States, yet the inflation surge is significantly more pronounced and the prospects are worse for Europe. This section would benefit from a clean-up and adding international context. Secondly, the section on the disagreement amongst economists regarding the nature of the inflation should go at the end of the article. Thirdly, the section on the impact of the invasion contains some dubious content. The sentence "On February 24, Russian military forces invaded Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected government, and replace it with a Russian puppet government." reflects an outdated belief and should be removed. Fourthly, the regional impacts section is incomplete, unbalanced and lacks a better structure. In the sub-section on Europe, the Netherlands and France are singled out for no reason. There's nothing about China and Japan even though the latter, which has been known as a low-inflation country, recorded its highest inflation for years. Fifthly, the article lacks a section summarising the policy responses across regions and countries. Policy rate increases by central banks and support packages by governments should go there. I know this is something that should end up on the article's talk page, but I deliberately post it here in order to prevent premature posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing I don't think the level of activity or change meets the criteria for listing as ongoing 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:612F:F6D4:920D:34E3 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing A higher quality article than 2022 in climate change, but don't want to go down the rabbit hole for either when I can't forsee objective criteria for pulling such ongoing topics that become platforms bordering for WP:NOTDIARY edits.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Jakob Eng

 * Comment. Reference 2 appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting, apparently supporting almost the entirety of several long paragraphs. As it's in Norwegian I can't easily tell whether it does verify all of that information or not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Resume in prose format listing positions but without much depth about what his role/accomplishments were while in those positions.  Spencer T• C 02:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ronnie Radford

 * Oppose, this is comprehensive but not fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insufficiently sourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is citation-needed tagged. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Four {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Tigray War

 * Wait until it's clear this genuinely ends the conflict. It could just as well be another Minsk. The Kip (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Tigray War article is clearly not the article to feature for this topic (it's hardly even updated), would suggest bolding Tigrayan peace process instead. Still it needs a bit more work before featuring on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Per The Kip. We all know how the Russo-Ukrainian War turned out, even after a "truce". This could be a nothingburger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Per The Kip and PrecariousWorlds, plus the Tigray War has already had one ceasefire that was broken a few months after it was signed, so we don't know how this one will turn out ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 13:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Per the article Tigrayan peace process, "However, as Eritrea and other warring parties were not involved in the agreement, their status remained unclear." It seems that much of the implications to this seem unclear as yet.  Also, the article Tigrayan peace process SHOULD be the bolded link, not the war in general, as it is the article whose focus is best aligned with the blurb, not the general war.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait,Better wait to see what comes out of it. Alex-h (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If Russia and Ukraine declare a truce are we aren't going to wait and see if it holds, we are going to post it. We should do the same here. I also don't believe "wait" is a valid option, as there isn't a trigger for posting this in the future; if it does hold then it is likely that no further candidates are produced. BilledMammal (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending quality fixes - per BilledMammal, what exactly are we waiting for? The deal has been signed and it represents a serious breakthrough. Perhaps it will hold on the ground, perhaps it won't, but that won't necessarily become clear for some time, and this is clearly in the news now and encyclopedic. Obviously it would be better if there were an article on the deal itself, but the main war article will do for starters. That article is mostly in decent state, but it does have a couple of orange tags pertaining to the "Second Cameron ministry" and "Facebook" sections, which would need tidying up first. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending quality fixes – as per Amakuru. Get rid of the two tags and then it's ready to go.  Schwede 66  00:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per BilledMammal. Also ceasefires are entirely different than the complete end of hostilities (the prior breakung of which should have no bearing here). Gotitbro (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurbing Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement – I'm honestly quite frustrated with how items are always nominated for ITN before the article on the subject is even written. But here it is, and it looks pretty fine. Could use more work, but I praise the work done on the article already :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the right article to bold. Please propose a blurb, I believe this is ready for posting. Tone 08:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed alt-blurb one :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'd support the alt article. It is very light on detail in the "overview" section, being effectively just a primary-source reading of what's in the document, without interpretation. And the reaction section is a long bulleted list of countries with ugly flags, most of which lack broader significance to the agreement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt per Maplestrip. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - the Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement article is much improved since my comment above, and there's general agreement otherwise, so have posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know voting =/= consensus, but of 11 total !votes there’s 5 “wait”-s and 6 “support”-s. Hardly looks like consensus to me. The Kip (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Israeli election

 * Wait I will fully support alt blurb 1 when the coalition is formed, but it is not official yet. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (i.e. not ALT1) The most straightforward of the bunch, and we would not have to wait for coalition talks, which are uncertain at best. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless at the moment, 2022 Israeli legislative election, which should be bolded, needs prose in the results section. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. If the past is any indication, in Israeli politics, there is difference between which party gets the most seats and who will actually get to rule.VR talk 04:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - once a coalition is formed then blurb for incoming PM, but given the failure to form governments in the past patience would be prudent. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JPost saying Netanyahu assured victory, WSJ saying secured majority, think this can go up now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And Lapid has now conceded as well, think this can go in with altblurb1. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support main blurb - We might want to wait until the coalition is actually formed, though. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait as per Nableezy Shadow4dark (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting immediately once article is updated. The results from this election qualify as ITN/R, and we can't delay posting because of an uncertain future event. I've started a discussion on the talk page in an attempt to solicit some opinions on such cases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The election is historic since it is the first time Meretz lost an election. Shwcz (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted, since Netanyahu's opponent has conceded. Linking national camp in the blurb since that is the article about the winning bloc.  Sandstein   13:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrey Titenko

 * Support. Comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erich Reich

 * Weak support. The Career section feels rather anaemic but other than that it's fine and sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems well sourced. Agree the career section is very light, but it seems like he might have been more notable for his charity than business work anyways. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 18:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ela Bhatt

 * Oppose Many paragraphs are completely uncited and there are some long ones with only a single citation (I've not checked to see if the source supports everything in that paragraph, some seem likely to others are possible but less likely). Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is ok, now has enough sources for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except for the 10 cn tags I just added and all the one-line paragraphs that should be consolidated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until article is improved.VR talk 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is citation-needed tagged. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nine {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mauro Forghieri

 * Nearly there - there are four citations needed, which I've just tagged, but I don't think they are likely to be tricky to source. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article cuts off after 2005. His death is not recognized in the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien, the article has since been updated. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Enough coverage for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The article seems to be in good enough shape. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Was Nov.2nd the date of his death or the date of the announcement of his death? --PFHLai (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The death date. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and new footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Danish election

 * Wait - Per Shadow4dark PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait new government, she resigned and want new government with both political spectrum parties and not just left. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no need to wait for the formation of a government. The elections themselves are ITNR. Although it's necessary for the "Results" section to have prose. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Just write "87 seat", as the remaining seats are technically from regionalist parties with more nuanced political ideas.  c o m p l a i n e r  11:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The media considers those three parties to be part of the red bloc. Gust Justice (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we should stick to the alternative blurb...  c o m p l a i n e r  16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Suggested altblurb2 replacing "a majority of the seats" with "a majority by one seat". This is unusual, interesting, and only requires one defector to change. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: ITN has always avoided putting numerical results in election blurbs, same as scorelines in sport blurbs. Just say 'wins a majority' without specifying how big it is or how many seats are involved. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we compromise with "narrow majority"? The narrowness has been well-noted in RS. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Note also that Frederiksen is attempting to form a big-tent coalition instead of relying on left bloc support, so stating that the left bloc won a majority may be misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The threat of a left bloc majority gives her a large leverage towards centre-right parties joining a possible coalition so it would still be very important even if such a coalition is formed. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment They won a majority regardless of what she does with it.  c o m p l a i n e r  18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not misleading. It's what reliable sources are saying. We obviously shouldn't conclude on what the government will look like, but simply saying the red bloc has won a majority of seats is true. Gust Justice (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait . No real issue waiting a little to see if there is more word on if this coalition will stick or if it will be expanded. It means more, IMO, for us to post about the bloc if it is indeed the one that sticks. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does not appear that negotiations will end soon. Thus, I am switching to support. Additionally, I added that Frederiksen is the PM, which was noted in prior blurbs (may confuse readers as to what she is the incumbent of). Thus, I support AltIII. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 No need to wait until the formation of a government. Article appears fine, wish there was prose in the Results section. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 Ready to go. Also, the Israeli election – which also had a similar result (a majority for a particular block) and was held on the same day as this one – was already posted, so I do not see any issue here. Vida0007 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It will not be posted in MP as long as there's no prose in the results section. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Svoboda (politician)

 * Support I don't see a need for strict word limits for ITN, and what's there is sourced and appears comprehensive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Booth (cartoonist)

 * Oppose orange tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose poorly cited article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of {cn} tags still in the prose. The Publications section is unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of most of the citation issues. A few of his books do not have citation. Can the nomination go through without them? Thriley (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This appears ready to post. Thriley (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Max Maven

 * Oppose. In addition to the unsourced awards noted above, there is missing citation in the prose (I've just tagged it) and the media appearances section has lots of 1-2 sentence paragraphs that could do with being reformed into proper prose. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. article is sufficiently cited and updated to include death. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still three explicit citation needed tags in the article and no attempt to improve the prose has been made. I remain opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is citation-needed tagged. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Three {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gael Greene

 * Oppose. It's not too bad, with only I think four places needing citations (now tagged) but it's not ready for the main page yet. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Personal section is very short, but the article is sufficient for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The missing citations have not been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's generally not a reason to hold up an ITN candidate per WP:ITNQUALITY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article currently says that "her writing gave New Yorkers a new way to think about dining out" and that she was fired after 40 years. Those are bold/contentious claims that absolutely have to be cited before this can be posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is citation-needed tagged. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julie Powell

 * Oppose for now due to article quality. As it stands, the four sentences in the "Biography" section are the only biographical sentences in the article. The rest of it is about her notable book, not her. This needs more biographical detail and better integration. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support based on the improvement. Would be better to further balance it out as it's still a bit heavy on the Julie/Julia, but I wouldn't make a federal case out of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the biographical parts of the article have been expanded since the above comment, I think there is enough there now for RD but the sole sentence in the film section is unsourced (I've tagged it) so it's not ready yet. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article covers basic biographic information and the cause of death is sourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Takeoff (rapper)

 * Support This is good to go as the sources are good. Some sections need to be expanded but I expect that to be addressed in the coming hours or days. Vida0007 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - major claims are cited. Looks good to go. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article seems to have been expanded since the previous comments with quite a bit unsourced, including an explicit CN tag. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That can all be deleted if unsourced per WP:BURDEN - Floydian τ ¢ 13:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can be, but much better to give a little bit of time to allow it to be sourced before rushing to remove information. There's another six days before this is stale. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Takeoff_(rapper) has been significantly contributed since.  GR 86  (<b style="color:#000">📱</b>) 14:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first half of the Career section needs more sources, but seeing makes me even more sure this is not ready yet. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - widely reported (eg WaPo, NYT. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - career section has nothing significant and is lacking in citations. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This has since been contributed to significantly and has also been cited.  GR 86  (<b style="color:#000">📱</b>) 15:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Career section suffers from two uncited paragraphs Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Both cited now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks better now Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable artist, tragic death. I believe RD will be ready in a few given the situation. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  15:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * have your concerns been addressed? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three uncited statements in the career section - is simple maths for the date and that he died in Houston is well sourced elsewhere in the article so that's nothing to worry about, and  shouldn't need a citation either.  does need a reference but it should be very east to verify. Fix that and it's good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the RD is now posted, but noting that I didn't get your ping for some reason. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Citation is sufficient for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. I !voted above so I will not post myself. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 04:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Filep Karma

 * Support Very prominent independence figure in West Papua. -Jiaminglimjm (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jiaminglimjm, thanks for your input but ITN isn't concerned with prominence (all articles are eligible). For recent deaths nominations comments should focus on the quality of the article alone - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds good. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is ready. Vida0007 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as such. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)