Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2023

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.

(Closed) Botticelli's recovered painting
While lost paintings do occasionally pop up, this, being Botticelli's, looks particularly noteworthy. Brandmeistertalk  15:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't even say it was missing. Would be an embarrassing feature... Also how did we get an image of the painting in 2022 if it had been missing for fifty thirty years? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually quite simple. Scan/photo of a image in an old book/magazine. Or at least cropping from a news photo. Or taking a picture during the recovery, depends on luck. Brandmeistertalk  15:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is kinda stubby and there is not much detail about what happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be different if this was like a major theft and has since been resolved, but this reads more like it simply got lost in a shuffle in protecting art from the earthquake in 1984. Its not the world's greatest mystery being solved here. --M asem (t) 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Significance, the recovery of art is usually not ITN-worthy, and it's not like this was some important or notable missing painting. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not that significant, but it’s an interesting nom. This painting is not one of Botticelli's most recognized works, nor is its "disappearance" historical, since it was due to a sale. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not find this significant enough to post. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) LGBT rights in Russia
Blurb is a bit convoluted in order to fit the primary article, open to rephrasing. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support a blurb of some kind, but "setback" might not be the appropriate word to use, since it is somewhat non-neutral. Maybe something closer to "Russia's supreme court is condemned by LGBT rights supporters for banning the LGBT movement." -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty big setback for the LGBT community, considering this is coming from one of the most influential countries on the planet - although a different blurb would be better per Rockstone.  q w 3 r t y  01:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Once the article is up to scratch (it has not been updated and referencing is seriously subpar) I would support alt3 as factual and to the point w/o any editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Considering that this genuinely might lead to the banning of any LGBT persons, this is a massive deal as countries around it may follow. Lukt64 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Objectively, I think this news story meets the customary criteria for a blurb. However, Wikipedia, and ITN more specifically are not here to right great wrongs. And article quality is frankly nowhere near acceptable for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose solely on quality as target article is orange-tagged. Definitely notable enough, though - it’s not just the banning of a single organization, but the entire movement. Rather disturbing news, honestly. The   Kip  03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral Emperor Putin has already effectively banned the LGBT movement for years. He classified the flag and references as pornographic material and has had people arrested. He also banned same sex marriage via the constitutional amendment he pushed through. Hard to see how this is any different.
 * Noah, AATalk 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - besides the CN, the summary table should have sources (which ought to reuse what's already present) --M asem (t) 03:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, not ready on quality per Ad Orientem. Best case scenario is they've outlawed all public expression supportive of LGBT rights, worst case scenario is they've effectively outlawed being LGBT in public, and either of those are notable. All we know as a matter of fact is that the Supreme Court outlawed "the international LGBT movement". why does that terminology sound so familiar?  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding that my preference is for Altblurb IV - my !vote was originally going to have paragraphs of ramblings about how I don't like using the term "the LGBT movement" in Wikivoice and how that does not adequately tell the reader what actually got banned for a number of fairly obvious reasons, "the LGBT movement" is not an entity or organization that can be dissolved by a legal ruling, it is a category of person and those who are supportive of said people, hence why even the target article LGBT movement is actually named LGBT movements plural. But I got into edit conflict after edit conflict and lost the original ramblings, and at the time no other users had expressed issue with the language so I was worried I'd just look like a crazy nitpicker anyways. Thankfully, multiple other editors have said what I wanted to say (in much fewer words than I was going to use) and someone even offered up a satisfactory altblurb.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 13:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No you're right that the language wasn't adequate, wasn't sure how to phrase it but having the claim in quotes is much better indeed. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis of notability, but I think the blurbs currently proposed are unclear. I propose the following alternate blurb: Russian Supreme Court outlaws the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added this proposal as Alt 4. JM (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt 3 since the other three blurbs are not neutral. MtPenguinMonster's proposed blurb is also OK. Banedon (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, way too many CN tags, and as far as I can tell there's only one line of update for this event, let alone having its own section. However if this ends up getting posted, if there ends up being a consensus to post, i would support Alt 4 because the first 2 blurbs are not NPOV, the 2nd altblurb is not the main story, and Alt3 definitely has the wrong bolded words (should be "bans" that is bolded, not "LGBT movement"). JM (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blurb which uncritically refers to "the LGBT movement". To the extent the phrase means anything (our wikilink redirects to the crucially more accurate LGBT movements), it is an unquestioning repeating of the conspiracist rhetoric used by the justice department, which Reuters translates as "the international LGBT social movement". Far better to reflect the term "activist" which Reuters uses when not referring to government statements, eg. "In Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the LGBT activism." (Edit conflicted here, ALT4 is an alternative that presents the statement as a quote, which is another option resolving this issue.) CMD (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, wasn't feeling too well about it but didn't know how to word it better. Thanks for the better wordings that make it clear that "LGBT movement" is not a real, specific thing, but at the same time that it will have an impact on actual LGBT people. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose So, what? The LGBT movement is banned in much of Africa, Central Asia and Western Asia. There are even countries in which LGBT people get death penalties (e.g. Iran) or get tortured before death (e.g. Saudi Arabia). In addition, the LGBT community in Russia didn't have many rights prior to this decision so that this can be considered a major setback (note that death is regularly enforced in Chechnya). I think decrimanlisation in Iran or Saudi Arabia would be a much greater news than this decision that changes very little in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and not representative of the laws in Russia at large. This is a much bigger and much more worrying change. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurbs are absolutely woeful, but the difference is that rather than saying "you can't be gay" and hurting those who still are, Russia has now apparently labelled any form of belief that LGBT+ people can exist as extremist ideology and basically treachery (comments from Milonov on 'extremist aims to destabilise Russia'). So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real. And it seems by calling it extremism (instead of just criminalising), Russia extends their powers in how harshly suspects can be treated, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real this is hyperbole, the authorities themselves must acknowledge that homosexuality is real in order to persecute these people. It's fully possible to describe the significance of such a ruling and its consequences without exaggeration. JM (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Milonov said they would try to clamp down on any information about LGBT+, period: it's not hyperbole. And how would the authorities have to acknowledge homosexuality is real to clamp down? They follow the party line that it's something made up to destroy families. (ed: Which seems to be the whole point of this new ruling, actually. Formalising for prosecution purposes that Russia says LGBT+ isn't real but a dangerous ideology the West has created to harm the state.) I know that a 'lesser' version of this ruling would be severe and significant, but they've really started with full censorship/invisibility tactics here. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue here is that we are using two different meanings of "real". Your "real" is "something that exists and is natural", my "real" is "something that exists whether invented or natural". It doesn't really matter, the result in Russia is the same, and so the significance for blurbing is the same. JM (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue might be a little more in your interpretation of the legislation, because that's not how I meant "real". But yes, it's moot. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per @Kiril Simeonovski PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This ruling is not transformative. The LGBT movement was already restricted before this ruling. Thriley (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No significant update to the article in question. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality, as noted above by others, some statements have four cites, why other areas have nothing. There is a lot of sourcing in the article, but it is somewhat unbalanced. Also opposing per Kiril Simeonovski above, who I feel makes a valid point, there wasn't much difference on top of what was already banned. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on quality The news are definitely notable, but as others above have stated, there are far too many CN tags within the article. --Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Russia is known for a history of anti-LGBTQ movements, and the article is notable in itself as per above, however the quality of the article is not really in the best shape, once the CN tags are removed, may lean toward Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Russian government is already known for its anti-LGBT stance, this doesn't come as a surprise nor does it meaningfully impact Russian politics. PolarManne (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This doesn't change a thing; it just formalises what has already been in practice for quite a long time. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 18:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Edited blurbs to reflect the point made by several people about contextualizing "LGBT movement" in quotes. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like the practical reality of this is worse than the worst-case-scenario I suggested might happen in my !vote above. Looks like the real-life consequence of this is the banning of not just pro-LGBT speech or being LGBT in public, but a police crackdown of being LGBT behind closed doors in privately-owned spaces. Moscow police raid gay clubs after high court labels LGBTQ+ movement ‘extremist’ - Politico <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Make a standalone article on the ruling itself (plenty of legislation articles in Category:Statutory_law_by_country to use as examples) and change the bold article to be that. Massively significant per my reply above – beyond no PDA and no books with positive gay depictions, Russia has given itself license to treat "the international LGBT+ movement" like any other state would treat any other extremist group. Per Amnesty International: Recognizing it as “extremist” carries severe legal consequences for everyone involved in LGBTI-related activities or even having a known, or assumed, association with the LGBTI community. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Elliott Erwitt
French-born American photographer, notable for documenting personalities such as Richard Nixon and Marilyn Monroe, as well as events such as the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy's state funeral. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The unsourced tag on the article needs to be sorted out. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more sources in the early life and filmmaking career sections. If I see this improved, I'll change my stance. Jmanlucas (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Has an orange tag. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The section Elliott Erwitt has zero footnotes. Is "Iconic" a bit WP:Peacock-ish? --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alistair Darling
Former Labour Party Chancellor of the Exchequer and Member of Parliament (MP). BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: needs work on the citations. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - far too much unreferenced material. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are still some area's not sourced, but I don't know how strict to be for a yes or not on RD. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 or 2 CN tags is considered fine, any more than that is usually not. JM (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when? It most certainly wasn't considered fine 12 months ago. Polyamorph (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNQUALITY one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article JM (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that means one or two cns should not hold up the posting but rather that it's possible one or two wouldn't be seen by some/many people as a problem, especially if the content that is tagged isn't controversial. I don't think it's making a definite statement that one or two is fine, even if they're on contentious material and/or editors are objecting. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That also states 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. As such I don't think the 'one or two' cn tags flexibility applies for RD. Personally I don't think it's acceptable on any article, but it certainly hasn't been acceptable to have cn tags on previous RD discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There was just an argument about this in Kissinger's RD/blurb discussion, where Vanilla Wizard said the following: WP:BLP does not apply to the recently deceased when their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Any extension to BLP on such an article only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. JM (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That argument does not represent the consensus here, as stated in WP:ITNQUALITY that you referenced. If you want this change in how things are done at ITN for RD then a more extensive discussion is needed, at this project's talk page and update the criteria notes accordingly. Polyamorph (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Vanilla Wizard, I'm just quoting them from below, where it seemed to be 4v1 in favour of BLP not applying to confirmed deaths (Vanilla Wizard, Ed, BilledMammal, and F4U vs Masem), so they seem to disagree that it goes against policy. Additionally, Queen of Hearts had no problem agreeing that ITNQUALITY was not an issue for a few CNs. Oh and also as far as I can tell BLP doesn't say we can't have any CN tags, just that contentious material must be sourced to RS. JM (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it up with Vanilla Wizard they're not the one discussing here. This is not the place to decide consensus. Your 5v1 count is not consensus. Historically, here at ITN, RDs have required cn tags be addressed before posting. If you want to change that, a discussion is needed at the talk page, not here. Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: the comment this is response to has been edited Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, the only consensus I see is that of the Kissinger discussion, where the consensus of people involved in the ITNQUALITY/BLP arguement was that a few CNs was fine. That's the only consensus on that area that I can recall (I haven't been here long) and it contradicts what you're saying. So where is this consensus you are talking about? If I could see it then I could judge for myself. JM (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: my comment was corrected within 2 minutes of your comment, before I saw you had commented, in order to clarify that Queen of Hearts agreed with the ITNQUALITY part, not specifically the BLP part. JM (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've opened a thread on the talk page, as this is not the correct place for this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane MacGowan
Lead singer of the Pogues (Fairytale of New York)  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality issues. Still a lot of unsupported material there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just been working on citing the uncited bits .  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The filmography is still unsupported, as is much of the discography. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now fully sourced.  ——Serial  16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing issues dealt with. Go Shane.  ——Serial  12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems to have been cleaned up. "Fucking borders are just such a pain in the fucking arse." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good article on a great artist. Maxxies (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support "A man of many words and few teeth" (- Andrew Anthony, The Observer, 2000). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michèle Rivasi
French MEP since 2009, arrested for breaking into the Kleine Brogel Air Base out of protest with three other MEPs. Jmanlucas (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to be acceptable length and is well-cited. The   Kip  20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has a sufficient amount of citations + overall content. More could be added into the Education/Early career section, but it’s not that big of a complaint. Good enough. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: A single-sentence lead is too short. And the date and place of birth need sources, and preferably added to the prose, please. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sentences to the lead. --PFHLai (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC) The date and place of birth are now referenced in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Reposted) RD/blurb: Henry Kissinger
Been waiting for this day. Davey2116 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * now now, this is still Wikipedia let’s not turn ITN/C in to a place where we celebrate somebody’s death. We can do that in the privacy of our own homes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb - obviously I would think. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb obviously as nominator. Davey2116 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - he was an extremely controversial and influential figure, so his death is big news Youraveragearmy (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not. He was 100! His death is no surprise at all!! HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * OMD He was 100. The update is currently four words and two numbers long, so mentioning this would bring it to five and three. Should be "29", too, not "29th". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Longer than the blurb now, but still, a big name like this in RD speaks for itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb - An exceptionally influential and well-known figure. But oppose the currently proposed blurb. "Statesman" is not a neutral term. It implies a level of renown and respect. Kissinger is, to say the least, a controversial and infamous figure in contemporary American politics. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not a head of state, not a head of government, so not sufficiently notable. This is exactly the type of death for whom a Recent Death entry is sufficient. Chrisclear (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We post individuals who were considered at the top of their field, not just at the top of their country. Kissinger was, for better or for worse, one of the most powerful and effective figures in geopolitics. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that he was "one of the most powerful and effective figures in geopolitics"? Chrisclear (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I defer to the biographical article proposed for a blurb. The lede contains multiple sentences noting that Kissinger held a very prominent role in the foreign policy of the United States during his tenure and as such became regarded as a highly effective and influential secretary of state, with some even regarding him as the most effective in the last half-century. I can think of few other geopoliticians whose decisions had so much sway over a nation's foreign policy, and whose ideas continued to influence future leaders even after his time in government came to an end. I'll even go as far as to say this isn't necessarily an Ameri-centric blurb — how many nations' histories have been touched by his decisions? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb. Maybe American-centric, but hugely notable and controversial. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 02:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hold on Let's not let ourselves be carried away by emotions. There are unsourced paragraphs and lines. I will support the blurb once this has been resolved; this is the time before a politician who is not HoS or HoG. His work in diplomacy did change the Latin American heads of state, without a doubt… _-_Alsor (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Support alt blurb Internationally known US diplomat whose name is likely more well-known than that of many US presidents abroad. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on quality as well. There are only a few uncited sentences and none of them are contentious. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb obviously not for most secretaries of state, but a remarkably important figure. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - obviously one of the most influential and well-known figures of the late 20th century; definitely a leader in his field until today. — Knightof  theswords  02:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, he is certainly notable but not at that level. Otherwise Charlie Munger should probably get a blurb too. - Indefensible (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Charlie Munger is an obviously different case. I mean for god's sake he's being called America's most famous diplomat, as someone who fundamentally transformed Cold War history, America's most notorious war criminal, etc. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kissinger was a colossal figure in American diplomatic history and a giant on the world stage during the cold war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're comparing Kissinger to Charlie Munger? I'm...kind of speechless. Maybe it's because I lived through the 70s? Valereee (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Kissinger was one of the most important and influential figures of the twentieth century. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb. Kissinger is one of the most (in)famous people of the twentieth century. As Tom Lehrer said, "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize." -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Huge global story, currently atop of the homepages of Le Monde, Der Spiegel, El Pais. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Highly influential and infamous. The world should know about this wonderful news in whatever form is most appropriate, a RD and/or blurb.Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Large and very notable. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 02:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose solely on article quality. A few too many gaps in referencing. Strongly Support Blurb on merits. Kissinger was one of the giants of the Cold War. His death probably marks the passing of the last great figure of that era. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb as per what others have said above. Alt blurb is a bit more descriptive and neutral than OG blurb. For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 02:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- His legacy was important in US geopolitics during the Cold War. In addition, his death was recent so it would make sense to be in the news. Rager7 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or alt blurb. Hate him or love him, he was immensely important on a world scale. Valereee (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb, per those above. BD2412  T 02:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Support !votes without addressing quality need to be ignored before even considering a blurb. --M asem (t) 02:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article I don't see any quality issues so significant that they would prevent the posting of this blurb; while quality is important, it doesn't need to be perfect, and the more significant the topic the further it can be from perfect to still be appropriate to post. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are "citation needed" and at least one unsourced paragraphs. Those are dead stops if we are considering a blurb. We do not sacrifice quality to rush something like this to post. M asem (t) 02:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the length of the article, the number of "citation needed" tags appears to be appropriate per WP:ITNQUALITY, and I'm not seeing any entire sections that lack sources or red/orange tags. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WRONG. Its a BLP, its held to a higher standard. Zero CNs and zero unsourced paragraphs are the target. M asem (t) 04:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not alive. Have you not read the blurb? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to the recently deceased (for at least a period of 6 months). M asem (t) 04:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're pulling this out of, but it does not (not without editorial consensus which is clearly unlikely to exist). WP:BDP is the link to the relevant section. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I too was going to reply to this to bring up WP:BDP. WP:BLP does not apply to the recently deceased when their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Any extension to BLP on such an article only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Unless any contentious material in the article could plausibly have implications for living relatives of Kissinger, BLP does not apply to this article. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was some change in that policy in 2021 which did not seem to have any RFC, and was a result of one editor taking an initiative based on an ANI thread, which did not seem to have consensus. The prior version of BDP was clear that it wasn't just contentious material that was important to consider for recently deceased. I am going to open a discussion on WT:BLP related to this.
 * That said, quality is still a core requirement for any posting, and if we've been looking for CN-free articles for other RDs, we absolutely can expect the same here, and it wasn't like it was days away from being fixed - it was a handful that within hours has gotten fixed. Too many editors here blinding !voting support without workign on improving the article or considering the quality is epidemic of well-known figures. M asem (t) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ITNQUALITY does not align with the opinion expressed in your first sentence. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb one of the most influential persons of the 20th century. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No blurb A major person. That's why he has a lovely big article. But his significant actions were all many decades ago. Nothing new to be said. And we must obviously ignore every comment that effectively says he obviously deserves a blurb. That's NOT an argument! HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic, Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher would not have been blurbed.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kissinger was never a leader of a country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pelé was never a leader of a country either, we blurbed him.  starship  .paint  (RUN) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And shouldn't have. Your point? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My logic is that they shouldn't have been. JM (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. One of the most influential political figures of the last hundred years. I agree with the concern that statesman sounds too favourable. I'd *personally* go with "war criminal" but in the interest of compromise would accept the alternative blurb. Would also accept no blurb, but I think it would be odd to not have his death noted on the main page at all.
 * Patitsel (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which war crimes was Kissinger convicted of? ITN is not a place for polemic. We can't say "war criminal" if he wasn't convicted. JM (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People really shouldn't live this long after their career ends. Valereee (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll need to bring that up to God. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * God's got a lot of explaining to do, in my book. Valereee (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM if you have opinions on things other than significance or article quality you should go to Twitter or something. JM (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb obviously, current cover of NYTimes <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb One of the most influential foreign policy leaders, controversial figure who remained active until the end and arguably the top of his field in terms of foreign policy. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb once quality is fixed. One of the top diplomats ever, influential internationally.  starship .paint  (RUN) 03:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - widely notable and consequential figure, and not just for the US.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 03:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb per strong consensus above. WP:ITNQUALITY appears to be minimally met. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull article is NOT ready. There was no rush. We have to look at the quality issues, not just the notoriety! _-_Alsor (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled >10 CN tags, including contentious material in a BLP.  Spencer T• C 03:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP; WP:BDP only applies if there is an editorial consensus for it to apply. Further, I'm not seeing any consensus here to pull; can you explain why you see such a consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to the recently deceased. M asem (t) 04:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP says Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.
 * There isn't an editorial consensus, and even if there was none of the "Citation Needed" material appears to have implications for their living relatives and friends. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your reversal, which was done in contravention of a clear consensus above. My read of that consensus is that editors were unconcerned with the approximately 5% of the article's words being uncited, and ITNQUALITY states that a few citation needed tags do not disqualify an article from being blurbed. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not ideal that took what they had to know would be a controversial administrator action and then went offline, unable to respond to these questions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to re-evaluate the article and discussion within 2 hours. Best,  Spencer T• C 05:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Queen  of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it really so expensive to wait a few hours to finish fixing the quality of Kissinger’s article? We are not going to make exceptions. _-_Alsor (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need to make exceptions; WP:ITNQUALITY allows for a few Citation Needed tags. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A few, not more than 10 _-_Alsor (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We are down to less than a few. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to keep this from the front page over a few cn tags. None of the uncited material is contentious. Thriley (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh... Kissinger would play a key role in bombing Cambodia to disrupt raids into South Vietnam from Cambodia, as well as the 1970 Cambodian campaign and subsequent widespread bombing of Khmer Rouge targets in Cambodia.[citation needed] The pull was just. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that contentious, given Kissenger's position and broader positions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely call it a sentence that should have a source. This is a BLP (or BDP) of a highly controversial person. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is trivially easy to source and approaches blue sky territory for anybody familiar with the topic. I added a citation to a source that was already in the further reading section. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Citation policy no longer functions in this way. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider this pull, it seems improper. Thanks. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Spencer is 100% right to pull. Of the !votes before the posted, only a handful addressed the quality and they all pointed out the problems with it. We do not play favorites or weaken our quality requirements to rush an RD or blurb to ITN. M asem (t) 04:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb once tags are handled. Highly prominent in world affairs and atrongly polarizing. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb once CN tags are fixed per all above. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Yes, the portion of Kissinger's article that is uncited isn't massive, but it's enough, IMO, that deserves note. No rush here. It's not like we need to post his death imminently. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb once quality is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb One of the most influential fiugures of the 20th century, for better or for worse. –DMartin  04:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ive fixed a handful of the cn tags, we're down to 3 and I think thats good enough for the main page. Should be restored unless we are concerned about it being too early for the UK/EU editors to weigh in on blurbability. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed 3 cn tags and we are down to 2 cn tags. We should be able to clear these up in an hour?  starship .paint  (RUN) 04:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like 1 or 2 CN tags matter anyway for either RD or a blurb. JM (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb — U.S.-centric news. I recognize his significance, but Kissinger was not a head of state. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We dont have a head of state rule, we do have a rule on not opposing material because it relates to one country. And the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, Israel, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, and ... would all like a word with you on how US-centric this man was. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb per above on notibilty. Being a more high-profile member of the U.S. Government and arguably one of the most powerful members to never be president, his death merits a blurb. Although I understand the reasons behind those who !oppose, I stand by my vote. On quality: Yes, there are some CN tags still in article, but the number has been reduced to 2. Ideally, those should be rectified as well, but for an article of this length, it can sort of get away with 2 tags. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb old man dies. Kissinger was 100 and in charge of nothing, that's not a death notable enough for an ITN blurb. Good enough for RD, only 2 citation tags. Also, I'll call out the nominator for a nominator's comment composed entirely of WP:FORUM without even mentioning notability or quality, and also adding a support vote for their own nomination. No doubt this is a contentious person, but enough. This is ITN, not Twitter. JM (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reposted Citation issues have been substantially improved.  Spencer T• C 04:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support altblurb My personal feelings on the man aside, he was a titan of the Cold War and arguably more influential in 20th-century geopolitics than some prominent world leaders. I feel that he lives up to the stature of a blurb-worthy figure, for better or (most certainly) worse. The   Kip  05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support altblurb Per above, very notable individual in 20th century geopolitics. Centuries123 (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb&mdash;Kissinger was a major, major figure in world affairs during the 1970s. I'd say he's plenty blurb-worthy. Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Like him or hate him, a lot of world history surrounded him. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support - Considering just how influential in global affairs he continued to be even up to the age of 100. Whatever you think of him, damn, what a life PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sticky Vicky
NAEGABYEONHAE (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article looks fine. The nomination could use some credits for the editors who worked on it but that’s not a show-stopper. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No big problems and no longer three minutely glaring ones; the show must go on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to post. Jmanlucas (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment One citation in the article is to the Metro, which is unreliable per WP:METRO. Also for the record, BBC wrote on Thursday that "The performer's daughter announced she had died early on Friday morning in a post on her official Facebook page", but that date of "Friday" is inconsistent with the daughter's actual FB post from Wednesday 29 Nov: "I regret writing these words, my mother Sticky Vicky passed away today at 6..."—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both fixed, though a sentence is now a CN. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agyemang Diawusie
German association football player. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-sourced. No info about the cause yet, but he was surprisingly young. Source 16(worldfootball.net) isn't an RS but its one use is corroborated by another source, so that's fine. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems well-sourced, marking as Ready as it's been a few days with no other input. The   Kip  07:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Douglas-Hamilton, Baron Selkirk of Douglas
Scottish politician. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-sourced. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  19:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support a few unsourced claims, not enough to be a significant issue JM (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited and meets the criteria.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Political career section is a resume in prose format, without much depth/detail about what he accomplished in his various positions.  Spencer T• C 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, marking as Ready. The   Kip  07:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mali (elephant)
KTerPalmers (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support i see no quality issues. JM (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of the content is completely unsourced. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I checked out the "only elephant in the Philippines" claim and it seems sound. There was another popular elephant, Goyo, owned by Rafael Roces which was donated to the Mehan Garden but it died during the Second World War. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we put "Mali (elephant)"? Right now it looks like RD is saying the nation of Mali has died. It was odd enough that I had to click on it to see what it was referring to.--Varavour (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See thr WP:ERRORS discussion.   Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  22:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Munger
Thriley (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article is missing a couple of references currently but seems to meet requirements overall. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support "Of all the deadly sins, the dumbest is envy. It's the only one you can't have any fun with." Charlie Munger -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good and Munger was a very prominent figure. — Panamitsu (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support . Count Iblis (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hold on there’s (only) two cn tags. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i thought 1 or 2 CN tags was fine for RD JM (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The overall quality of the article is solid. The two CN tags are not attached to especially controversial claims. If someone can fix them that would be good. But the article is in better shape than most we see nominated here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’re right. But I prefer to see articles posted without any cn tags especially when the few that remain seem to be easily fixable (personal preference, of course). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed one tag but can't associate Munger's saying with the specific quote without viplolating WP:SYNTH. I don't think there's an easy-to-find source. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  17:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above JM (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. One cn tag shouldn't get in the way of posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) India tunnel collapse rescue

 * Support some good news Fdfexoex (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and this is making some headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. But as per e.g. Tham Luang cave rescue, should the title be changed to 2023 Uttarakhand tunnel rescue? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Not crazy about the phrasing of either blurb, but I would take Martin's suggestion either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support preferably altblurb, article looks good. Maybe include the rescue operation name? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Some very minor copyediting needed, but article overall seems good enough for ITN. Would prefer a different blurb, though - the wording feels off with the current two. The   Kip  19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Wow! Absolutely incredible story, definitely deserves to go up! Change of pace from the usual depressing news stream PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support excellent news, always in favour of good news at the ITN microbiology Marcus (petri dish&bullet;growths) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as it’s nice ITN material. The story reminds me of 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Also, the article looks great and ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NZ New PM
Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - granted, this is skimming through due to limited time, but I don't see any unsourced sections. Oppose - already posted election, there's a longstanding consensus against posting inaugural type of events. — Knightof  theswords  15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the election was posted, we don't normally post the mere assumption of office. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ITNR election was posted, we do not blurb formalities of their aftermath. Gotitbro (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Forming the coalition was not a formality. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It kinda was, as it was known after the election who National was going to have to partner with. That they now crossed the T's and dotted the I's is a formality. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With Spain and the Netherlands there is/was much less certainty about what the coalition will be. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted both the Italian election and Meloni's government formation earlier this year, so it is not a "we do not" situation, but rather a "is this an appropriate case to double-post" situation. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 *  Needs work Work done This is WP:ITN/R because he had to form a coalition to become PM – see recent discussions about Spain and Netherlands. But the target article needs work to explain the coalition.  For example, the big news which the BBC is highlighting is reversal of the policy of banning tobacco as "...National's partners in the governing coalition- the populist New Zealand First and libertarian Act - had been "insistent" on reversing the laws.  Despite election victory, the centre-right National party has struggled for weeks in policy negotiations to form a government with the two minor parties." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gotitbro. The   Kip  18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good work has been done by and others, creating a substantial and detailed article about the new coalition government.  I have added this to the nomination which looks good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't "elect" a prime minister in New Zealand and therefore, the altblurb is wrong. What happens is that the leader of the largest party that is part of the governing coalition becomes prime minister by convention, and that is not necessarily the leader of the party with the most votes (as was the case after the 2017 New Zealand general election).  Schwede 66  21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i just copied the Jacinda Ardern one that got onto the news. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And to be fair, I did not write the altblurb. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not even ITN/R since the election was covered. And also like Schwede66 says the altblurb is factually incorrect, the PM is appointed by the governor-general, not elected by anyone. JM (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The choosing of the PM can be posted outside of the election, but there was no doubt here that Luxon would be the PM. In the case of some other countries elections, it was not at all clear who the PM would be at first(Spain and now the Netherlands) 331dot (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder in gov't systems where the Prime Minister is selected by a coalition or majority of the elected Parliament at some point after the general election to elect those Parliament members, that the ITNR should be the selection of the PM, and not the results of the general election. I am sure that a near majority of the time, the likely PM can be predicated off the results of the general election, but if there is this official process of the second election/vote getting to actually being named PM, that seems the more significant result. M asem (t) 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -the election was already posted, so it's incorrect to post that this is ITN/R. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment FYI I didn't write the alt blurb, and it isn't factually correct either so whoever added it, wasn't me. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, election was already posted. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think there is anything objectionable about posting a government formation, even if we had the election. Assuming the formation of a coalition government feels very CRYSTAL to me. Granted, I see SNOW falling already on this nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The coalition article is worth showcasing. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We just posted the same story recently in regards to Spain, so I see no reason not to post this one either. The article appears to be good as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically because the person who won the elections and the person who became PM are not the same. The political context in Spain is far from being comparable to that of NZ. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also due to the surrounding internal strife in Spain as well. 86.188.230.178 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In Spain the second place party made a deal with Catalan parties to stay in power even though they did not win the election. It was not at all clear that would occur beforehand. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering it took a month for this coalition to form, one could also say "it was not at all clear" what would happen in New Zealand either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It took a month to agree on the particulars(such as agreeing to end the cigarette ban even though National did not campaign on that), but there was little doubt those were going to be the partners or that Luxon was going to be the PM, as the alternative would probably have been a new election. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Only because we already posted the election, but I think this is notable enough in of itself to slap on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support for the topic on the basis of notability and good article quality. Oppose altblurb since it's incorrect: the National party didn't win a majority of seats; they formed a coalition with two other parties. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb 2 which is just altblurb but correct. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it’s incorrect! We do not elect a prime minister. That position is appointed by the governor general.  Schwede 66  16:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe make it …becomes prime minister? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You would either say "appointed" or "sworn in". The former is what the GG does, and the latter is what happens during the formal process.  Schwede 66  18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jalapeño Would you like to change it? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JM. The elections have already been covered and there are no changes. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose- As consensus states, the election already occurred hence it's no longer a current event.  Rager7 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The election isn't a current event, but the forming of the government is. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The ITN/R event is that Luxon has become PM, which is a separate entry there. We did not report him becoming PM in the election blurb which just said "The National Party, led by Christopher Luxon, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election."  Now the other shoe has dropped and we have more news to report.  Now that the shape of his government is settled, it's generating headlines and we have a detailed article which explains it.  That article did not exist at the time of the election.  "That was then but this is now." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. ITNR and article quality is sufficient. Luxon did not win an outright majority of seats in the election, so this is not just a formality. Also, the election was last month. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; the coalition was far from guaranteed, and this meets WP:ITNELECTIONS, which lists Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government as among the qualifying events. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I just want to note that while the 2017 New Zealand general election was blurbed, the succeeding Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand that was formed as a result of coalition negotiations between Labour, NZF, and the Greens was not. The election was posted, but not the resulting government, despite National winning the most seats. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as predictability of outcomes goes, 2023 was very much as predicted, whereas 2017 was not. I remember listening to Winston Peters giving the speech in 2017 in which he announced which party he had chosen to go into coalition with. Ten minutes into the speech, I still didn't know. The announcement came with the last sentence; it was like a bomb going off. We most certainly should have blurbed the formation of the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand. I'm neutral on the Sixth National Government of New Zealand.  Schwede 66  00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean Knight

 * R&B and soul singer from New Orleans, Louisiana, best known for her 1971 hit single, "Mr. Big Stuff" on Stax Records. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Orange needs more references tag, which I agree with <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Valid orange maintenance template. Article needs more references. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. The Discography tables are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geordie Walker

 * Guitarist with Killing Joke and other bands. Article is in decent shape. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not Geordie. 😔 Support RD. Kurtis (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Gutted. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD — Article is in proper shape. RIP Geordie Aria1561 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - agreed, article looks good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Freetown attacks
Still a Start-class article, hoping to bring a bit of attention to help bring it up to ITN quality. Very recent development, possible attempted coup, identity of the group responsible still unknown. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 18:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, due to the lack of info about it. We don't know who the attackers are, how many of them there are, how many prisoners they released, nor how many casualties there are. X2023X (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait due to lack of info and stub state of article. The   Kip  20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until it becomes clearer what happened. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 21:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, but wait for more information becomes known. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but more info is needed - consider this a full support when its considered to have enough info JM (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - From what I'm seeing nobody knows what on Earth is actually going on here. Coup d'tat, terrorists. Completely unknown at this point. We can't post something like this when we have so little information PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(Reposted) 2023 MotoGP World Championship
Acticle waiting for updates. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article quality looks fine. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article is in good shape ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems ready. The   Kip  18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull: From the first para of the "Season summary" section:
 * In the fourth series in Spain, Bagnaia won the sprint race, then in the main race despite the drama of the red flag on the first lap due to an incident that occurred between Miguel Oliveira and Fabio Quartararo, finally from the race that was repeated Bagnaia won his second victory at this season. Followed by Brad Binder and Jack Miller.
 * Further examples abound ("Bagnaia made a mistake that crash in the gravel trap"). This isn't main page quality. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull - I agree with the comment above. One of the ITN criteria for article quality is that the article should be "well written with clear prose". The season summary is well-written in places but not everywhere - the section about the Australian race is still in the future tense, and from the Qatar race - "The next round is in Qatar, Luca Marini secured seconds career pole positions with all new time lap record at this track.". This isn't suitable quality for an article linked from the main page, sorry. There is excessive linking too - e.g. Jorge Martin is linked 11 times in the season summary section. Bcp67 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled – please ping me when the quality issues have been resolved (but I'll be out of coverage for half a day, so someone else needs to reinstate this if it gets resolved quickly).  Schwede 66  18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now . The season summary looks a lot better, credit to User:Grdijk for their work on it. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the season summary appear unsourced, the rest looks OK. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now sourced. Bcp67 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments. Excellent work by on the summary prose. But per  a lot of the names are still linked repeatedly. And the article is still largely impenetrable to the uninitiated: compare the introductory sentence here with other blurbs currently up:
 * The 2023 FIM MotoGP World Championship was the premier class of the 75th FIM Road Racing World Championship season.
 * The 2023 ICC Men's Cricket World Cup was the 13th edition of the Cricket World Cup, a quadrennial One Day International (ODI) cricket tournament contested by men's national teams and organised by the International Cricket Council (ICC)
 * The  2023 Booker Prize is an annual literary award given for the best English-language novel of the year published in either the United Kingdom or Ireland.
 * I'd like to see a mention of the vehicles involved, or some useful links, at the very least. What exactly is going on here? A bit more context.
 * The Calendar section tells me this is a competition that takes place in various places across the world over a number of months. That should be explained at the start of the Season summary, too. And some of the 20 races listed don't get a mention in the summary, which smacks of over-reliance on the tables. The first sentence draws a distinction between the "sprint race" and the "main race" (with the former an innovation, as we learn later) but doesn't explain that distinction. The article as it stands still assumes too much on the part of the reader: What does a "red-flagged race" entail? And "the black flag with orange disk"? What is "P2"? (Link or explain, please.) And tonally: does this read like an encyclopedia article or motorsports journalism? ("Legendary", in particular, is listed on MOS:Words to watch.) Moscow Mule (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are requesting details of a kind that would never be included in an article on F1 motor racing, Word Cup Football, or the Superbowl. If people want details like that, they can click on links to find out. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no links to click on to find out. "The 2023 FIM MotoGP World Championship was the premier class of the 75th FIM Road Racing World Championship season": nothing other than the expansion of the acronym for FIM. Compare it to the introductory sentence of the Cricket World Cup article. 2023 MotoGP World Championship doesn't even have a link to motorcycles in general, let alone the specific class of motorcycle that's eligible to compete. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK< so it needs links, but I still believe you're asking for details that the fans already know. I can assure you that when I see articles about some American sports, I often have no idea what some of the terms mean, but I don't complain, because I know that fans do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I normally don't look at sports articles, but are they really meant for fans only? No casual/curious readers allowed? Because elsewhere (eg. Milei and the Argentine election) we explain the electoral system, the structure of parliament/congress, the rules governing presidential terms & eligibility, the parties' ideological leanings, immediate historical background, etc., etc., etc. And anything opaque or potentially so (ballotage system, d'Hondt method) is linked or glossed. Nothing is assumed: even 2024 United States presidential election tells us "Voters will elect a president and vice president for a term of four years" -- well, duh. And no one would assert an article like either of those is for fans of elections and politics (or of South and North America) only. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TECHNICAL: Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added the desired "this is motorcycle racing" explanation to the lead, and the prose seems to have been CE'd enough. Don't see why this shouldn't be reposted. The   Kip  19:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Repost It looks like the issues have been fixed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reposted  Spencer T• C 17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Karachi mall fire
Ainty Painty (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. The article does not provide sufficient information. Maxxies (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on both notability and quality, minor disaster and the article isn't up to shape. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 13:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose At this point, seems like an unfortunate fire, but details are too thin to know if there are other major issues. --M asem (t) 15:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Chaotic Enby. Article’s a stub and disaster seems fairly small-scale/non-notable. The   Kip  19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notability --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Venables

 * Recently deceased football manager who had great success with England national team. Govvy (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One of English football's great managers. Meets all requirements.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 13:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Meets all requirements” The entirely unsourced sections don’t bother you? 83.80.192.174 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Unsourced sections have (to my knowledge) all been sorted, with citations added where requested. Should be all good now. CommissarDoggo (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Entire unsourced sections (QPR, Australia, Palace, Middlesbrough) and a number of other citations needed. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready - Seven unresolved tags at the moment. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 14:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is more or less very well sourced, I've seen a lot worse articles get posted to RD, seems good enough now to me to be posted. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Now ready to post. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * needs more citations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with 2 refs added to the above queried section, I thinks it's covered now Josey Wales Parley 20:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I Opposed this, but I think this is now good enough to post; I removed one sentence that was unsourced and looked a bit trivial. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Booker Prize

 * I believe it's 2023 Booker Prize that is ITN/R, not the article of the book itself. Neither is ready for the main page. Both are stubs. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu see the quote below, even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be what won the award. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We really should have one of either the author or the book as a bold link. The update to the Booker Prize list is a trivial matter, so we should see a quality article on either or both the author or book. Here, I see all but a couple of awards that Lynch would need to be cited to be ready, and the book article just needs some more expansion (for example, Lynch's explanation of the book from here or perhaps from here. There's clearly more sourcing available to expand the book a notch more. M asem (t) 01:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we add primary sources, ie. interviews with Paul Lynch? Golan1911 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lynch and the book are both independently notable via secondary sources, so adding primary source interviews to add more information is completely fine. Primary sources are not something to avoid, you just don't want an article based only on primary sources. M asem (t) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia page/article for the book was expanded upon. Golan1911 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality it's just a stub. Definitely not enough for ITN. Support per below JM (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is terrible. Essentially just a list at the moment PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there’s a lot of confusion about this issue, both now and in years past. Muboshgu’s statement is the first comment made under this nomination and, imo, led to the initial confusion and many oppose votes.
 * Support - Because of the significant updates to both the book article (for Prophet Song) and to the Paul Lynch article. And because the updates include references and citations to credible sources. So both articles can be used for the blurb. The article for the 2023 Booker Prize is Ok, too.Trauma Novitiate (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak support: Prophet Song article is of good quality. Not sure about the prize. It doesn’t have much but doesn’t have much potential either. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that the target article is the great book article instead of the not-so-great prize article, Im changing my vote to support. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak support Prophet Song and Paul Lynch articles are short but adequate. Booker Prize article is a disaster length-wise, but as mentioned above I'm not sure it can really be expanded further than its current state. The   Kip  18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Updated vote now that BP article is de-targeted. The   Kip  23:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correct me if I’m wrong you all, but I just want to reiterate what M asem said above: “The update to the Booker Prize list is a trivial matter, so we should see a quality article on either or both the author or book.” That’s correct because per ITN/R “both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb”. It seems to me the oppose votes above (eg., JM &  PrecariousWorlds) are to the quality of the 2023 Booker Prize article (or just now “weak support“ from  Kip ), but that shouldn’t factor in here. So can we get these changed to Support? Thank you.Trauma Novitiate (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time of writing the articles for both the book and the writer weren't great, I should have clarified that I was referring to all three, not just the Booker Prize (though I did think that a little more was needed apart from the list). They've much improved now and could be put up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article for the 2023 Booker Prize was also expanded upon. Golan1911 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you PrecariousWorlds for taking another look at this. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling it to my attention, should have clarified before PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. Thank you for your work on this Golam1911 - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends. @Golan1911 may I unbold the booker prize article and change the target to be the book itself? Per ITN/R usually the target article is the winner and not the prize. That would make this a whole lot easier. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that would be great. Thank you. Golan1911 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can anyone add the article to the In The News section? If it is ready. Golan1911 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ITN/R usually the target article is the winner and not the prize @Aaron Liu: While it seems to have been the de facto practice for Booker blurbs, I don't think it is formally noted anywhere. —Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNAWARDS: Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's what I get for skimming it all these years. —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The novel's article passes muster; the other two are unobjectionable. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus exists that the blurb is supported.  Schwede 66  16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for posting Schwede66. However my fellow ITN editors: this could’ve been posted 24 hours ago, and should’ve been. I marked it as “Ready” before the MotoGP World Championship item was marked Ready and posted. As the editor of the nomination Golan1911, I don’t know what your opinion is. But I checked back thru the archives. Two years ago is the last time the Booker Prize winner was posted to ITN. Here’s the link. The same argument that happened 2 years ago happened again now. Check out the archive for November 3, 2021. I see that Masem gives a very detailed explanation of how this ITN/R should work, just as it was above explained by this same editor. The target article in each case is the article about the novel that earned the prize. The book itself. Just like 2 years ago. Not the author and not the Booker Prize article. Per ITN/R “both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb.” Can we get this altered to read that the book itself should be the target article for the Booker item if (or when) it is posted so that we don’t go another 2 years before we post this to ITN? Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I unmarked your ready because when you marked this item as such, it definitely did NOT have consensus to post. Even if the opposers were opposing due to confusion about the proper target article, you do not post if we don’t have consensus to post. As for the blurb itself, I do not see what needs alteration. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said the blurb needs alteration. I said the ITN/R rationale needs alteration. You very clearly understand what the issue is here: and you already addressed it above with Muboshgu: “even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be what won the award”.
 * I’m saying that in future, ITN editors should be able to go here In the news/Recurring items and under the Booker Awards section see something like this: "“even though the event is what’s ITNR the target article would be the work that won the award. Both the author and translator, as well as the work, should be included in blurb.”"
 * Yes it’s true I did mark it Ready, and I did it two different times. The first time I marked it Ready, there was not consensus. I was incorrect. However, I did mark it Ready a second time but only after consensus was reached, maybe 12 hours ago: it was at the same time editor Black Kite posted the RD for Terry Venables but before Bagumba posted the 2023 MotoGP World Championship winner (perhaps prematurely). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire awards section in ITNR says the target article should be the prize winner unless otherwise noted. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah and that’s the point. Because in the case of the Booker Prize it’s not otherwise noted. The Booker Prize is awarded to a single book of fiction. So that’s what needs to be the target article. And it needs to say so explicitly in the ITNR. But hey it’s all good. I take it that now we’re just talking past each other, anyhow. So see you this time next year when we’ll be debating the same issues. Because I looked back through the archives re: Booker ITN nominations and it happens almost every year, the confusion, except last year when the nomination went stale. I’m finished talking about this unless anyone can tell me who’s the arbiter I can petition to get the wording changed on this ITN/R for the Booker, so as to help us out in the future. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the editors for your thoughtful suggestions and assistance in getting these articles reading for the ITN section.Golan1911 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Golan1911
 * My pleasure. I enjoyed the process. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Smoking ban scrapped to fund tax cuts
This is causing quite a stir in New Zealand and the reason I'm nominating this is that last night's main TV news led with this article, focussing on the strong and widespread international reaction. Given that, and that the rather recent New Zealand legislation has already been copied by the UK government, indicates that it's got an impact far beyond domestic politics. Nominated for 25 November as it was on Saturday that the link to the tax cuts became known.  Schwede 66  08:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose until it happens, per the article this is what the incoming govt wants to do but nothing has changed yet. --M asem (t) 13:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per M asem, it doesn't make sense to post this to ITN until it's actually passed and enacted. ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, it's WP:CRYSTAL until it formally happens. The   Kip  20:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Claiming that this has been done only to raise revenue seems too cynical, OR and POV. There seem to be multiple motives including libertarian principles and the difficulty of enforcement as people got older.  And the main reason is that it was a bargaining chip in the coalition agreement which we have covered by a separate nomination. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Marty Krofft
{{ITN candidate }} The World of Sid and Marty Krofft trippy children's program producers. He and his brother Sid were a major part of why the 70s was the best decade to be a kid. CoatCheck (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * article      = Sid and Marty Krofft
 * recent deaths = yes
 * sources      = MSN, Variety{
 * updated      = yes
 * nominator    = CoatCheck
 * updaters     = TDKR Chicago 101


 * The prose has a handful of {cn} tags. The Works and Awards sections are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Still the same issues after six days. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russell Norman (restaurateur)

 * Support, New, autopatrolled, start class article. Pretty well referenced with some behind paywalls (to me anyway) so AGF.  Maybe could use a reference where it is stated his first book received the inaugural Waterstones Book of the Year award.  Josey Wales Parley 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Waterstone’s Book of the Year Award, the reference is Amelia Hill’s Guardian piece from November 24 which was already a reference being used, so an easy fix. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent work done on this article. It holds up well. Yes, some of the citations run up against paywalls. I’ll check to see if the web archive & the Wayback machine have anything available. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to find some archived versions for the few references running up against a paywall, but no luck so far. However, not having access to these paywall articles doesn’t hurt this BLP’s accuracy, credibility, or legitimacy. It’s already very well sourced with references available to the ordinary reader. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -  I apologise for citing paywall backed articles as I initially found those sources as credible references to the article and I obtained the information based on such paywall articles. I really understand that such paywall articles are not readily available to everyone due to limited access. I tried my best to add more references to the said article and hopefully it can match with the expectations of the readers and viewers. I take the blame and responsibility for not making more efforts in finding accessible references and citations when creating the article. I just messed up a bit there and I am sorry  for that. I can guarantee that I have taken the information from such paywall sources. Abishe (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You don’t need to apologize. Using paywalled sources is not wrong at all as long as you’re not making the information up or replacing free sources with paywalled sources. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that. You certainly don’t need to apologize. Your work as an editor is first-class as your starting and editing of this article indicates. You have integrity, obviously. You even meticulously use ISSN’s in your references. I’ve not done that before, but maybe I need to. Thanks for your work. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry I was away from editing for a few days, I certainly agree with the others above in that you have nothing to apologise for, using non free references is common and all I meant above was that I was assuming good faith as I couldn't check those references. Keep up your excellent work on this project and best wishes  Josey Wales Parley 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone has added a yellow move tag. It has really flowery prose "paradigm shift" etc. Secretlondon (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move tags are purple and do not prevent an article from being on the main page. That paragraph is the only one with flowery language so it should be good enough. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Douglas Ahlstedt

 * Support: article seems good enough. There’s an unsourced sentence at the end of the United States section about how well he performed on the gameshow, should we remove that? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I commented it out, couldn't find a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Somalia joins the East African Community
Major geopolitical development in East Africa, with the East African Community admitting Somalia after 11 years of negotiations. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 09:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please consider crediting (co-crediting?) ItzSyther if possible, who noted the need for updates on the talkpage before I edited the page. CMD (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for noting! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I think this is ITN-worthy as this is a pretty significant change to the political landscape of East Africa. LynxesDesmond (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - I do think this can potentially be notable enough to warrant a blurb, but only just. With the ongoing project of the East African Federation I think this could have quite a significant effect (though at risk of POV I would mention that it's very unlikely Somalia will be integrated into this IMO due to how unstable the state is, same as South Sudan or DRCongo) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose only on the basis of the two orange tags in the article. These must be resolved first, but this is appropriate for posting otherwise. --M asem (t) 15:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but the article is not ready per Masem. Moazfargal (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above as in Moazfargal Lukt64 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per the aforementioned orange banners. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work, CMD. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The BBC report says that "To be admitted into the EAC, new countries are supposed to show that they adhere to the principles of good governance ... Last year, Somalia was ranked the most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International." But the EAC article says little about this discrepancy.  And the EAC article appears to need some significant fact-checking as the things it does say include "Tanzania has more land than all the other EAC nations combined ..." – a claim which seems about 15 years out-of-date.  Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability but quality must be improved. Andrew says there is "a claim 15 years out of date". JM (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have boldly added more information to the two tagged sections and removed the tags. The outdated information noted relates to the early integration period (pre-expansion), I added a bit on the end of that enthusiasm before expansion began. I've also removed a bunch of cruft that had little to do with the topic. A general outdatedness in some areas may remain (not sure how this interacts with ITN requirements), although it's worth noting that in some cases issues simply stalled and continue to stall forever. CMD (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 13:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Relatively unknown organisation without much influence.
 * Do we always post ascensions of countries to some organisations, even not famous?
 * I don't think so. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has a ton of influence on East Africa. It's famous enough. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the equivalent of the European Union for the African states, so definitely significant that a new country is introduced. Just because its not in the news as much as the EU doesn't make it less significant. M asem (t) 16:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The European Union is a massive confederation of global powers, the EAC is little more than a small regional forum PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's among the most influential African organizations (with the African Union), with a much higher level of integration between members and prospects for federalization (although the last three members complicate that point). Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the core group of the EAC makes some sense but Somalia's accession seems more like annexation of a failed state than a marriage of equals. See Eurasia Review for an eye-opening critique.  A key issue is that Somalia is not part of the Swahili language region.  Our article does not explain this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In term of personal opinions, I'd say everything past the first 5 members was an absolute mess that only prevented the "core" EAC from progressing towards a federation. In terms of Wikivoice, I don't think that's what belongs in the article (also the link doesn't work for me, unfortunately). Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to summarise secondary sources with some analysis, rather than just presenting PR platitudes as if they are a sure thing. Note that the EAC has collapsed completely before and so the success of its plans can't be taken for granted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course no future plan should be taken for granted (WP:CRYSTAL after all) but using the argument of "it collapsed before" to support this point is in the range of being OR Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 00:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, to me this excessive rate of expansion to barely-functioning states is only jeopardizing prospects of a Federation, but I'll leave it at that PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Article needs a lot of work. The   Kip  19:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What should be improved most urgently? I see that the last two sections are basically just tables, but the rest appears pretty clean? Thanks! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 21:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me now. The   Kip  08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ross McDonnell
Irish filmmaker. Article was recently created and needs work. He was missing for two weeks before parts of his remains were discovered on a beach in Queens, NY. Thriley (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub. Grimes2 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article is too short. Suonii180 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Only ninety words of prose? That's way too short. --PFHLai (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ron Hodges
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 240d:1a:4b5:2800:d95:482e:96cf:9ffa (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2023 November 24 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently an under-cited stub. The   Kip  19:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With only 287 words of prose, this wikibio seems rather stubby. Does anyone want to add some stuffs from https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/Ron-Hodges/ ? --PFHLai (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Fathima Beevi

 * Comment: Close, but seems a little bit of undue weight to the controversy section, without much detail about her legal career or judicial contributions. Also not sure what it means when it says Beevi "gave a clean chit to the law and order situation", which could use some clarification, as the rest of the section depends on understanding what this means.  Spencer T• C 15:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Peters
Thriley (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, article includes unsourced information. Suonii180 (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several unreferenced sections and a handful of {cn} tags elsewhere in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harald Hasselbach
Blurb not really necessary, but eligible for ticker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am only nominating for the RD ticker.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've struck the blurb, but didn't outright delete it as people have already commented.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for RD Article is adequate for RD, if barely. Oppose blurb A prominent athlete but not on a level justifying a blurb and article quality is also not up to scratch for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, notable life, non-notable death. Also not a household name for a non-American/Canadian like me. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, oppose blurb on notability. The article should be expanded, I find it too short for someone who, apparently, was so notable in his field. But he is far from having a blurb, from what Chatoic says. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality: barely more than a stub. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb on notability, oppose RD on quality support RD . This person is not notable for dying and isn't a huge figure, thus definitely not blurb-worthy. This article is a stub, this doesn't seem to be up to snuff for RD. This article has been expanded past a stub and is up to snuff. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 02:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When in nominated this it was 1190 characters. It is now 1938.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the RD character minimum the same as the DYK minimum of 1500?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but a stub won’t get posted. Stephen 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the current 2545 character version considered a stub?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD on quality, oppose blurb on notability per all above. Article's 6 paragraphs (if you count two sentences as a paragraph).  q w 3 r t y  13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We've got no consensus for a blurb - no more voting for that as that is just going to bring down the RD nomination. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Six decent-sized paragraphs and over 2,500 bytes of prose is definitely above stub class and enough to post – a currently featured item (Claude Kahn) is actually shorter than this (if you don't count a list of works). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Beanie. Changing to support _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 10:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is adequate enough for RD, if only barely. The   Kip  19:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The claims of quality do not seem well founded. For example, one of the sources is a fantasy site and the link doesn't work for me. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's just the one, tag it, but that alone doesn't seem like a showstopper, unless there are more. —Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nonetheless, I've replaced the dead link with another source that mentions the information. Tails   Wx  16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The replacement citation does not fully support the existing sentence. This is not quality; it's fudging. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which part of the sentence isn't supported? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I misread the source, originally the part to have been a part of a winning team wasn't supported. I did modify the sentence thereafter per the ESPN reference, sorry about the confusion. Tails   Wx  00:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you win a team sport, you were part of the winning team, but sure, this reads better. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson This is not quality; it's fudging: Gentle reminder to assume good faith. Otherwise, be prepared to show diffs that an individual's behavior is habitually and intentionally deceiving. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty sure it was not really an accusation and trying to say there was a mistake in the sourcing. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fudge can mean to fake, falsify or cheat... —Bagumba (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * fudge To alter something from its true state, as to hide a flaw or uncertainty, deliberately but not necessarily dishonestly or immorally. There’s also a dated definition of botch, which I thought was the main. It’s weird how we need to do this in an AGF discussion. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article has been expanded sufficiently past stub-class and is well-sourced. Good to go for ITN posting. Tails   Wx  16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If any other editor wants to pitch in to qualify this for a WP:DYK co-nom, we still have 4 days to get this to 3100 characters. I don't see that much more that needs to be added, but welcome help in that regard.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Dublin riot

 * Pretty widely reported in Irish and international news sources. This level of rioting is fairly uncommon in Dublin, and the Garda Commissioner has said that the protestors were "driven by far-right ideology". I could use some assistance with the blurbs, as I'm not an ITN regular and I'm not sure what the style is here. We expect there will be more to add tomorrow afternoon, particularly surrounding the actions of a Brazilian Deliveroo driver who reportedly intervened in the stabbings, we're just waiting on stronger sourcing for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone know what the last time a riot was posted was? I fully doubt this is greater than that, even if it's getting a lot of press right now. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Garda sources told the Irish Times that level of violence and criminal damaged "far eclipsed" the 2006 Dublin riots and was "unprecedented in the modern era in Dublin". Otherwise the most recent riot that I know of was 2021 Dublin riots. Unless I've misunderstood the question, and you're referring to the last time a riot was posted on ITN? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to all demonstrations in ITN. - Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives I've found a June 2023 Honduran prison riot. It also looks like the 2021 Northern Ireland riots were added on, but I can't find a discussion for that one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Honduran one was between 2 well-known gangs and killed 46 and the NI one only ran on its tenth day. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 06:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose An unrest of about 200 ppl (based on our article) is very small in the larger scope of things, particularly in response to a domestic, non-terrorism related crime, is not really notable in the larger scale of things, at this point. If the unrest continues for several days, that might be something. --M asem (t) 03:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose. Article is now at RM. RM has been closed. I'll give this a proper review later. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 06:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is much important as it's only changing "unrest" to "riot". <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt. This was a pretty major event in Ireland; they don't have riots like this often. Also per Nableezy. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 01:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose riots are not ITNR per se, wherever they occur. They are usual and ordinary. In this case, I don't see that they have a remarkable impact even if the motive is execrable. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't usual and ordinary. Secretlondon (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article fails to explain why this particular stabbing incident led to riots. Though careful to mention the national origin of the person who helped stop the attacker, and quick to blame "right wing ideology" it suspiciously doesn't state the national origin of the attacker despite the attacker being a naturalized citizen. This is likely a key detail as to why the stabbings resulted in riots and is missing from the article. --142.116.102.110 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The media is doing the same. Secretlondon (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Front page news, high quality article, major event. This is the quintessential ITN blurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support altblurb: A lot more out of the ordinary than elections or sports. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ^^ PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is of decent quality and event is highly covered in the news. Moazfargal (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Seeing as how this is the biggest riot Ireland has seen in modern times (besides the 2006 Dublin riot), I think that this deserves a spot LynxesDesmond (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But it was only 200 people, which is quite small compared to other protests or riots like those in Hong Kong, India, or the US. M asem (t) 19:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's still larger than what we currently have in the ITN column. Plus Ireland has less people than any of the places you listed, so it logically follows that the rioter count would be smaller. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't force things into ITN because other blurbs are stale or lacking. And yes, with Ireland being a small country, a riot that involves a larger proportion of their population is still small scale. M asem (t) 21:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this event does have a bigger impact than every current item, I don't see why we shouldn't "force" it in. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not force news to happen, simply to progress stale blurbs out of the box. That's been discussed multiple times on the talk page before and rejected. M asem (t) 21:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not forcing news to happen, it already is news. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is like saying "There's only 24 footballers in the Grey Cup Finale, so we shouldn't post it". It's the international reaction and significance that makes this notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Small-scale incident that didn't last very long. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It lasted longer than the Grey Cup. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon Aaron, you know that argument makes no sense. Obviously sports events rarely last as long as riots, but duration and volume or persons in a riot tends to have a big impact on the incident's effect. And you asked a question below about "damage" that I will answer. That answer is "no". A small-scale tropical storm can do that damage and might actually kill people. No one died, and while I can't say that this is a "small" incident for anyone effected, the effects seem fairly contained and the impacts of this event going forward are indeterminate. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that sports events rarely have as much impact as better news. If there was a small-scale tropical storm in this month, that would be news! If there was one during the hurricane season, it wouldn't be because there are a ton of other, similar and larger news. The same does not go for these weeks, which is why we should post this. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support major event, lots of destruction, significant as a flash point of anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland. Many politicians are reacting strongly negatively, so this is having repurcussions in Irish politics. Although I think we should have a blurb which explains the reasons ("stabbed by an Algerian immigrant") regardless of whether the reason is valid; the entire event is being characterized as a far-right anti-immigrant protest and the blurb ignores that. JM (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the proposed change to the blurb, the nationality of the suspect has not officially been released by the Gardaí. Conversely there are several reliable sources (New York Times, Daily Telegraph UK, The Guardian UK) who have reported on this being misinformation that precipitated the riot. As with other details surrounding the stabbings, until the Gardaí release the information and it is published in reliable sources, we cannot report upon it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the article now states: He was later reported to be a man in his 50s who had lived in Ireland for 20 years, had become a naturalised Irish citizen in 2014, and had been living in homeless accommodation in Dublin’s north inner city. The origin country of the attacker has not been announced by the authorities. So we could at least put immigrant for context, or, like I said below, specify that the rioters believed the attacker was a MENA immigrant. I believe it's important to clarify that this riot is not just over a stabbing, its motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. JM (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I support a blurb, I Oppose Altblurb II. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on which of the other two get posted. JM (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - front page around the world (NYT has this on its front page for example). We should let our sources determine significance, not our own personal opinions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 200 people is too small for ITN. Elisecars727 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The amount of people participating in a protest shouldn't be the criteria for posting, only the coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, a small-scale flash in the pan that could lead to further unrest, at which point we can always reintroduce. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: What, exactly, do the current editors at ITN deem enough to post as news? I know there's quality and the vague principle of impact, but isn't 30+ shops, vehicles and infrastructure damaged impact enough? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now I believe the current standards for significance are too high. So something like this which is front page news and being talked about everywhere is being opposed as not significant enough - fine, if we had many more important things to blurb, but we don't. I've come to believe that standards for significance should be determined by volume of newsworthy events, with more news meaning higher significance standards to maintain the same influx of new blurbs. But I know some people here disagree because we've just discussed it not that long ago (I know Masem in particular strongly disagrees and considers it to be "forcing news" which I disagree with - it is news regardless). These beliefs apply here since I believe this blurb meets my current standards, considering all that I wrote above. I also believe people who say there are often too many sports blurbs should support this non-sports blurb. JM (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, the current standards seem to be "either have a massive lasting importance, or be a sports event". Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. A brief and nasty riot in a country that, at least in recent times, is not well known for that sort of thing. But the scale and numbers are not enough for ITN. Larger disturbances occur routinely all over the world and we pay no attention to them. Long term significance is likely low to nil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then also nominate the larger disturbances with similarly loaded emotion. It's often said that the solution to too much sports and elections is to nominate more news, and this is indeed news. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, that's what I was considering saying. JM (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news ticker and ITN shouldn't be one either. Not everything that gets enough news coverage for an article needs to be posted at ITN. I realize that is not a popular position in some quarters, but that's where I stand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What should In the news be then? The stated purpose is to highlight quality articles and help news people quickly find the Wikipedia article they're looking for. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something being In The News shouldn't be a criteria in a section called...In The News? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a definitely newsworthy event and front-page news in many sources. Disagree with mentioning the alleged nationality of the suspect in the blurb, although agree that context is welcome. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 09:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you propose contextualizing anti-MENA-immigrant riots without mentioning that the cause was the rioters' belief that the attack was perpetrated by a MENA immigrant? JM (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying "anti-immigrant riots" would make the point clear enough in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Promoting something to ITN means it'll stay there for a good while. I don't see why we should give publicity to a very minor piece of disorder by a couple of hundred racists that has already largely disappeared from the news. Oh, and can we give it a rest with the "but it's so much more important than sport" stuff?  That's not helping. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2023 Liberian election was barely covered and it's still up, this isn't a reason to oppose. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not a "very minor piece of disorder". Central Dublin was seriously damaged and disrupted and extra riot police are still on standby in the street to suppress any recurrence, which did happen, if you follow the details in the latest version of the article. And, it has not "largely disappeared from the news". Spideog (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I am bewildered as to how this hasn't been featured yet. This kind of hatred has been brewing for years in Ireland and this level of civil disorder is unprecedented. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. In the proposed blurb, I would add the word "major" ("In Dublin, a major riot occurs...") because it swelled from the original "between 100 and 200" in earlier versions of the article to 500, which is huge in Irish terms (it is a small country). This 500 is documented with citations in later versions of the article since the original proposal here in ITN. Riots are extremely rare in Ireland and are not on this scale. Spideog (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if it is a rare event in a country, or if its proportion of those involved is larger for the given country, it was still domestic event that had an irrational domestic response that was quelled quickly. It does not compare to the type of riots or protests that we have features in contrast to those that we have rejected. M asem (t) 23:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to watch you trying to prove convincingly that the response was "irrational" as opposed to simply your drive-by opinion. The havoc called for the expressions of horror and disgust that followed. Your attempt to minimise its significance by referring twice to "domestic" news is meaningless: the invention of the telescope by Galileo was domestic news in Italy and 9/11 in the United States was also a domestic event. The term "domestic" is a useless indicator of notability. Leaders of the United Kingdom and France reacted to it and it received widespread coverage in international media: were their responses also "irrational"? The event was highly notable in Irish terms which cannot be calibrated by misleading comparisons to countries with much more violent societies. Spideog (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People reacted to misinformation before getting confirmation. That's irrational behavior, and actually very common across a range of issues nowadays. M asem (t) 00:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People acted irrationally when they attacked the United States Federal Capitol Building, and that is still in the news three years later. Responses to the Irish riot by media and public figures internationally, not to mention the Irish public, were entirely rational. Spideog (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Masem is calling the riots irrational, not the response to the riots irrational, and that you're misinterpreting them. But I suppose only Masem knows for sure. JM (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you are right, irrational motives are not a helpful measure of newsworthiness. How many major wars and other major historical events have been ignited by irrationality? Spideog (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask Masem. JM (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, those that rioted acted irrationally. I am non-plussed by the kudzu of Reaction sections that are just international leaders sending the equivalent of their condolences, without any type of actual participation (like, actually sending aid in terms of people, money, or property), a long-standing problem with event articles. The fact that none of the Reactions are anything but simple statements leads to how little impact this even had on the overall world, though I am not judging my ITN oppose based on that. Simply that a riot of even 500 people with some small-scale level of vandalism and injuries due to people acting on misinformation is not really something that we'd post. M asem (t) 00:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are inventing personal criteria for ITN inclusion out of thin air with all your talk of irrationality and dismissing international leader behaviour (no aid, no money) and dreaming these pseudo-criteria might be taken seriously.


 * These "yardsticks" of yours are so random and left-field you could as well dismiss any candidate for ITN because beetles were not observed during the event, "so it is not newsworthy".


 * Going by your most recent comment, it seems necessary to repeat the fact that "small-scale level of vandalism" is incorrect. I already corrected you on this point: it didn't take, apparently. Repeating the error won't magically make it true. Spideog (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * How could 9/11 be a domestic event? The attackers were not Americans. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should ITN's standard be that high? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus to post this or not? BangJan1999 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's currently 11-8 in Support (including the Support below this), which is in the unclear range. I'm not going to post it because I commented. I'd argue that it's disappeared from the news tickers, outside Ireland, though, which could suggest that its impact is marginal.  I'd also suggest that if it is posted, the far-right nature of the riot needs to be in the blurb; this wasn't ordinary people who just happened to riot. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the blurb is going to call the riot far-right it definitely needs to point out what triggered it: the fact that the attacker was an immigrant and perhaps even the rioters' belief that the immigrant was a MENA immigrant. "Far-right" is so vague, it doesn't even tell us why the rioters rioted about this particular stabbing. It's like blurbing J6 without saying that they were motivated by their belief in election fraud. JM (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like consensus to me.  Schwede 66  18:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Nableezy.
 * <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 08:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose stale and little in the way of long term significance. Polyamorph (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An item is not stale unless it is older than the oldest ITN blurb, which was 14 November. It's in fact newer than the newest blurb. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's stale news. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s still better than the way staler news we currently have listed. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy and encyclopedic candidate, well written.  ——Serial  17:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't seem to have lasting significance appropriate for ITN. I suggest that someone close this since I don't think consensus to post will form. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this not closed yet? At this point its stale, why has nobody closed this as no consensus (which seems like the obvious choice to me) or post it? We are four days after an event arguing about if it is in the news? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that it is stale, I do agree that consensus is unlikely to develop. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close - Unfortunately, with ephemeral events such as this, the time to post this would have been within a day of its occurrence. As it currently stands, it doesn't seem to carry the significance and impact we tend to look for on ITN/C. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie
Thriley (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. (Pretty) good article; long and referenced. Some paragraphs are a bit long but that's far too picky for ITN. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (no relation) 06:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Article needs some ref improvement and copyediting in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The final section has zero footnotes, and the long list of bullet-points that follows is also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Dutch general election

 * Wait I just looked through the article and it seems that this round of voting is just the start as there are likely to be 16+ parties with seats and so the permutations needed to form a coalition will be large. Given what happened in Spain, perhaps we should wait until a government is formed. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * support once full results is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the electoral authority releases full results This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once results are there (also for some reason the reply button is broken?) Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 02:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to not ready, not enough prose and some sections like "Results" aren't really well-organized at all. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality issues Like some other recent elections, the last half of the article are nearly bare tables and charts. There needs to be more prose. And Andrew's point of how this gets resolved, in that they need a collalition with 75 seats (as I see it), will not happen overnight, but perhaps I'm not clear on this system. --M asem (t) 02:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they'll get their coalition anytime soon, and it's not even a given that they'll manage to make one. If it takes too long, from what I understand of ITN/R, the nomination of a Prime Minister (either Wilders or the leader of a potential grand coalition) should be made into a separate blurb. Otherwise, if it's done in the next few days, we could update the blurb to include it. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 03:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Last time, it took them 299 days to figure out a coalition. And it seems quite possible that the largest party will not be part of it this time.  That's what happened in Spain and so our initial announcement of a winner was misleading.  In such systems, it seems better to wait until the new coalition and leader is established. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's why we should be careful of only mentioning they received the most votes/seats rather than implying a "win" or definitive leadership of some sort. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 11:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Election results are ITNR. The article looks decent, and also the aftermath section is informative and explains a lot about possible coalitions. Post now, and if a government without PPV is eventually formed later, post that as well, as we did with Spain recently. --Tone 09:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR, and who knows how long the parties will take to sort out the coalition government. Per above, we can always post an update or new blurb if something significant changes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. Article quality is adequate. I am not unsympathetic to the point about likely delays in forming a government. But the election results are what we routinely blurb. And irrespective of the likelihood of Mr. Wilders or his party being a part of the next cabinet, they did quite well and the results of this election have been front page news globally. If it's newsworthy in its own right, we can blurb the next government separately once formed. But for now, the election results are the story. Let's get this up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article quality is not ready, the bottom half is mostly tables without prose. This needs to be fixed before posting. M asem (t) 18:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I supported earlier on, the article could indeed benefit of some more text in the said lines. If anyone wants to give it a go, some suggestions:
 * Parties: not much to be added here, relevant things are in the Background already
 * Debates: again, nothing essential missing
 * Opinion polls: a couple of sentences explaining in words what the graph says
 * Results: some summary as well, such as Party A won more than last time, Party B lost many seats, Party C is new to the Parliament etc. Then, the Aftermath is good.
 * Tone 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready a lot of tables, not so much prose. In the section on political parties I would almost prefer prose, prose that should also be in the results section whose table on results by provinces is empty. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the blurb after the official announcement. 3000MAX (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready. As stated by @Alsoriano97 and @M asem, there's too many tables and little prose. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Virtually no prose on the campaign/election itself, it's almost all tables in between background and aftermath. The   Kip  19:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The article has some serious issues:
 * The map 2023_Dutch_General_Election_Map.svg and the proposed alternative Tweede_Kamerverkiezingen_2023.svg do not suit the Dutch system of counting votes at a national level. The map gives the false impression that the PVV gained a large majority by winning so many electoral districts and could govern the country alone. 37 of 150 seats is far below a majority. The PVV needs to find at least 2 coalition partners.
 * The graph Opinion_polls_NL_2021-2023.svg shows a weighted average, which fails to show the sudden changes at the end of the campaign.
 * The sections campaign and opinion polls fail to describe what happened. What caused the dive of BBB and NSC in the polls? What happened in the final weeks of the campaign before the sudden rise of PVV?
 * Uwappa (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- The precedent for Dutch politics has always been the electoral district map. There is just no other way to display it clearly.
 * 3- I have added a paragraph to the aftermath explaining this. Haris920 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support national elections are ITN/R. JM (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @JM2023: Yes. But !voters are discussing whether WP:ITNQUALITY has been met. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I got ahead of myself and had my approval of its quality implicit in my vote. But yes, the quality is sufficient per above. JM (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, though someone being able to get that first graph in "Results" centered a bit better would be great. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is very important news, massive political upset. Article looks good enough.Civciv5 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Admin comment There are a significant number of editors pointing out that the article isn't ready. Although numerically outnumbered by support voters, I don't think this can be ignored on the strength of the concerns. If somebody has the time to add a couple of sentences to the "Results" and "Opinion polls" sections, I'd be happy to post this. Please ping me when it's done.  Schwede 66  21:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As said by someone above I added explanation of BBB decline and added some pose on opinion polls. If someone could take care on results the article is ready Shadow4dark (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for additional prose. The results are the results. The 2021 article has some basic numerical data, but anyone could calculate it if they so desired to. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is ready  Shadow4dark (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: "Results" and "Opinion polls" now have some text. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking "ready": "Results" and "Opinion polls" sections now have some text. Even before, the core of the election, including the key parties and their finishes, was already covered with sufficient prose in "Background" and "Aftermath", even if some sections with tables did not have prose in their immediate sections.  At worst, a Too many charts tag might be placed for more prose, but that's a yellow tag, not the ITN showstopping orange variety. This page is, at worst, on par with  the recent 2023 Argentine general election, which was posted with tables without immediately adjacent prose as well. What's more important is the actual content, not merely a cursory check for any sections of tables without prose.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – thanks everyone for getting this ready.  Schwede 66  09:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Return of the Altman
All over the news, attracting huge reader interest, article looks pretty good. It's a unique, interesting news story that would greatly diversify what we post and be actually useful to the general reader. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs work It's certainly in the news still but the latest developments are not yet reflected in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - notability. I'm not exactly sure if CEOs being reinstated is ITN worthy. Also, everyone on the face of the earth is voting to merge the article. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is not ITN-worty his cessation, nor his return. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the type of news that gets magnified in the short term, but in the long term may be just a paragraph in the history of the company from an encyclopedic perspective. This whole situation is exemplary of how bad we are failing summarizing news events as per NOT#NEWS, and instead trying to document every tiny detail, and why stories like day-to-day business and politics are not good ITNC candidates. --M asem (t) 13:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reopened closed nomination: There was a procedural close as "the article is currently listed at Articles for Deletion". The article has been kept and is in good shape, so there is merit in restarting this discussion.  Schwede 66  21:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * there isn't a single support vote yet, and since it was reopened there have been 3 more opposes and 0 supports. I believe WP:SNOW applies and it should be closed again at this point. JM (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not significant. CEO comes back after 4 days being fired. intra-corporate drama. JM (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There was a minor kerfuffle in the business world. It got resolved. Nothing meriting a blurb at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Shouldn't have been renominated in the first place. The   Kip  23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Israel-Hamas ceasefire and prisoner exchange

 * Conditional oppose - I think this should be blurbed on notability grounds, but as of now the link directs you to a minor paragraph. There needs to be a lot of expansion on the article in order to post this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PrecariousWorlds: I have expanded the section since. According to ITNCRIT, I think the update is enough. Moazfargal (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds of ongoing entry – robertsky (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing The deal has been structured in stages so there may be batches of hostages released and further extensions of the ceasefire. So, this seems likely to be another progressive/ongoing situation.  Ongoing seems best for such an uncertain development. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t even have a separate article for this. An ongoing would be way too much for this minor paragraph. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Separate articles for this include 2023 Israel–Hamas ceasefire and 2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis. The current ongoing entry could be supplemented as suggested by  recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The ceasefire article is absolutely unnecessary at this point, given this is only a 4 day ceaseation. M asem (t) 14:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think this is the best compromise between having a blurb for each new development, and not mentioning them at all. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional Oppose The ceasefire will only last for 4 days. Most blurbs that are posted last longer than that period of time, so posting this after the ceasefire ends will make the blurb look obsolete.  I am a little more considerate in an alternate blurb suggesting that “50-ish hostages were released as part of the ceasefire” though. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I got no issues with such altblurb, but it would have to mention that 150 Palestinians would also be set free. Moazfargal (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (minimal update per PrecariousWorlds), but weak support. Its only a short term ceasefire, but it is the first major agreement between the two sides here. However, also agree that ongoing should cover this. --M asem (t) 13:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem: I have expanded the section since. According to ITNCRIT, I think the update is enough. Moazfargal (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Probably enough of an update, definitely notable enough beyond ongoing as it will stop for a while for the first time in this iteration <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability, weak oppose on quality This is a large development in the war, but as I'm not all too familiar with ITN, I don't know if a tiny subsection of an article would suffice. ❤History  Theorist❤  16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ITNCRIT, a five-sentence update with three references to an already existing article is more than enough. Moazfargal (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the short duration and unknowns surrounding lasting impact, this would likely be best covered in ongoing unless something of lasting significance happens. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by Ongoing, plus the ceasefire will last only a short while. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Supplement ongoing as mentioned by Andrew above as a good compromise between full blurbing and nothing. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 17:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - ongoing, when something more permanent happens then another blurb makes sense. But a four day pause for a limited exchange isnt that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing is >>>> that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the basis of low article quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless it extends longer-term, otherwise it's sufficiently covered by ongoing. The   Kip  19:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tertius Delport
Former cabinet minister and CODESA negotiator.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerónimo Saavedra
Spanish politician and academic. First President of the Canary Islands after the establishment of the autonomous communities system and pioneer LGTBI politician. I've expanded the article, added more sources and the basics are there. I keep adding content with RS sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * In any case, this article was ready IMO since 22/11. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted –  Schwede 66  17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: S. S. Badrinath
Founder of Sankara Nethralaya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready I've reviewed it and it doesn't pass muster.  Schwede 66  18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) First North Korean satellite launch
ITN/R as a country's first successful orbital launch (by WP:ITN/R) (erratum: apparently only the first spy satellite, not the first satellite), work still needed to update the article for the last launch, which was (claimed to be) successful unlike the previous two. Open to rewording the blurb. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose because no immediate independent observations could be made according to the article. Even the AP article you linked as the source says it's only an NK claim. It could instead be worded as claims to have sent but then why blurb a claim? Surely claims are not ITN/R. It should be seen if the claim is verified before deciding whether or not to post it. JM (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * South Korea confirmed the claim of it reaching orbit per BBC Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 02:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that it's been confirmed. JM (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above. No independent confirmation of success. The   Kip  05:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work The details are emerging and the article is still being updated.  There seem to be diplomatic consequences as South Korea is suspending a pact and taking other steps.  And people like the UN and US are reacting too.  So, as it's not just a space event, we need to digest all this and review the article in a day or two. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Speaking of this, should the blurb mention it to be a spy satellite? It's really a question of which angle we want to showcase (the space achievement, or the geopolitical event) and both could be claimed to be more neutral/relevant. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above. 24.166.251.29 (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - If it's "just" an NK claim, it sure is odd that governments are all responding as though this were a real event, as well as the article stating that yes, the launch indeed happened successfully. As first space launches for any country are ITN/R, we need to go ahead and treat this as such. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb would need to reflect that this is what NK has claimed, until we have better verification it happened. same with the article. M asem (t) 20:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb. Also, the BBC article linked by Andrew above mentions South Korea confirming the satellite had entered orbit. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can claim the launch is true (SK is not a country to doubt) but we don't know if it made it there with full function, that still is a claim by NK, so it is hard to call it a success. Note I'm not saying not to post this, but the wording should be careful to overstate what we don't know or can't confirm. NK itself must be presumed unreliable for any claims. M asem (t) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good point indeed - I'm open to any proposed change in the blurbs, feel free to suggest a better way to put it! Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltCip. Governments are treating it as though it really happened. Moazfargal (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until confirmation of success by external sources. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the satellite reached orbit has been confirmed by South Korea, where the doubt remains is as to whether or not it is functional as a (spy) satellite. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, it isn't the first NK satellite launch, see Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.252.101 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, guess I can remove the ITN/R part then. Oopsie, thanks! Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 23:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems obvious enough, especially given follow-up news articles (such as the US accusing Russia of sending technology to NK). Banedon (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As noted already, not the first satellite and seemingly a minor diplomatic incident. Plus, if everyone knows you launched a "spy" satellite, then how effective is it? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Spy satellites don't have to be secret to capture intelligence JM (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And as long as you have a peaceful justification for the satellite, any effort by a hostile entity to destroy or incapacitate it would likely be considered a casus belli (although admittedly I'm no expert on space law), meaning that while diplomats fret over its implications, the satellite can yet continue its merry orbit around the Earth picking up data and sending it back to Pyongyang or wherever. So yes, I can imagine this creating a variety of problems. Unfortunately, the significance and impact is hard to ascertain. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It led to the termination of an agreement with South Korea, and other countries have also intervened, so not sure about how minor it is. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 13:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie Linden

 * Support Article has had over 10,000 views. His death has also been covered by The Irish Times. The article has been updated.—TrottieTrue (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Coverage and significance is irrelevant to RD. Anyone with a blue link and a verified death can be covered if their article is good enough. JM (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death covered by national newspapers in UK and Ireland. Denham331 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. TrottieTrue (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Annabel Giles
British television and radio presenter, actress, model and novelist. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is large enough and everything looks referenced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nina Katerli
– Thriley (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the majority of the article is unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Five days later, the majority of this article has remained unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Hernández
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The name rang a bell so I took a look at the article to see more. I found that the subject was a successful baseball pitcher in his day and the article looks quite good.  It appeared at DYK last year after being 5x expanded by Cbl62 who must have done quite a lot of work on it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks great. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: John E. Walsh
American political advisor. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Career section is mostly a list of campaigns/politicians he worked with; is there any more detail that can be added for depth?  Spencer T• C 06:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sara Tavares
Portuguese singer, composer, guitarist and percussionist. Needs a bit of work. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The Artistry and Discography sections are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Joss Ackland
Needs the sourcing issues sorting first, particularly in the filmography section. SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * He’s a going out with the tide Another great British character actor that, like Michael Gambon and David McCallum, joins the roll of honour of being too productive and successful for ITN. The BBC explains, "He appeared in dozens of films throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including The Mighty Ducks and Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.  In a 2001 interview with the BBC he said he appeared in some "awful films" because he was a workaholic."  I start reading his article regardless and it reminds me that he appeared in David Copperfield (1966 TV serial), which I remember.  Bill Fraser as Mr Micawber and Colin Jeavons as Uriah Heep really stick in the mind but I don't recall Ian McKellen as David himself – he must have been too young to be so famous then. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about...? WP:NOTFORUM JM (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Long justification for a blurb? Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s Andrew being himself, regrettably. The   Kip  16:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready Prose looks good, but the filmography is nearly entiely uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would a link to his BFI entry cover everything? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Aman Tuleyev
Governon of Kemerovo oblast, candidate in the 1991, 1996 and 2000 Russian presidential election. Андрій ЯЧ (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose entire sections wholly unsourced, including information on personal life and career. Polyamorph (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs on his Soviet career and his personal life have remained unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colette Maze

 * Support Page looks alright for RD. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Carlton Pearson
Nominator's Comments: Pentecostal pastor who believed in universal reconciliation; article needs a bit of citation work before being posted. ❤History Theorist❤  21:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose some lines and paras are unsourced.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Citations still missing in multiple paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 League of Legends World Championship
Nominator's comments: Contrary to most esports, the 2023 League of Legends World Championship has received quite a lot of coverage in mainstream international press, with some examples listed above. Total viewership is not yet known as much of it is from China, but as an indication, recent League world finals have reached up to 200 million concurrent viewers. Curbon7 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and stay neutral on notability for now, as while I'm not entirely sold on esports being wildly notable, the coverage is undeniable. However, I will say oppose on quality - the article's a table-fest, with little to no coverage of the proceedings themselves. Most prose is limited to the lead or the stage/tourney format explanations. The   Kip  23:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait Those are very impressive numbers, so I checked the article for a recap of the big game and found just one sentence in the third paragraph of a relatively bulky lead. It says essentially as much as the proposed blurb does. That's hardly a substantial update, even if T1 played an exceptionally good game and/or won an impressively large purse (it very well may have). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Might sound surprising from me, but the answer to "ITN has too much sports" shouldn't be to blurb less sports, but to blurb more other things. Notability is certainly there. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 23:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above Lukt64 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support T1 does it again This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable to post. If we are to post an esports event, the LoL World Championship would be a good one to post, and I's say in line with current sports postings. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Support - Per @Chaotic Enby, but there is seriously an undue weight towards sports on ITN at the moment. This is getting kind of ridiculous PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If we post this and the ITN/R below, 3 out of 4 blurbs would be sports-related PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot control how ITNR events happen, outside of those within the same sporting field (eg if it was four blurbs all about car racing, that might be a problem and we'd likely condense to one or two which I think we have in the past). M asem (t) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that we should address the lack of diversity in ITN and seek to blurb more stories that are useful to the general reader, hence the 'regretful' comment about how ITN has become a glorified Sports and Elections ticker PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People should be discussing this on the talk page if they want it changed. JM (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As stated by @PrecariousWorlds, there is an undue weight towards sports on ITN. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's got some coverage, but far less than many news stories that we haven't posted here. And it isn't ITN/R, which given the amount of sports stories that are, probably needs a discussion.   Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Yes, it is not the R item, but given its popularity, especially among the young generation, would lean towards support. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per policy WP:NOTNEWS which is fairly clear that routine sporting results are not an appropriate topic for this encyclopedia. There's also little significance because the definition of sports is that they are frivolous entertainments whose results don't matter.  Who wins the Argentina election, the Gaza conflict or the OpenAI boardroom struggle has some real-world consequences but this game result doesn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some sport results have real-world issues, hence the development of ITN/R, but I agree this one doesn't. It occurs to me that support for this is relevant to enwiki's core editors, which the real world, again, isn't. See also: the posting of Sam Bankman-Fried. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Once again, Wikipedia talk:In the news if you want to propose your constantly-talked-about removal of sports events, but as it’s almost certain you’ll once again not follow through on your complaints, I strongly advise you to simply stop commenting on sports items and spare us the hassle. The   Kip  19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sports doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? Give me a break man. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim that sports are "frivolous entertainments", on top of being pretty condescending, is a value judgement and not how we should decide whether something is in the news. And, even though we are definitely giving them undue weight in ITN currently, it doesn't mean that they don't have a place here at all by your made-up criterion. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When I have time this week I’ll try to begin gathering diffs for the ANI case we’ve consistently discussed. The   Kip  02:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors wanting further discussion should note that there's already a fresh discussion about Revising sports recurring items. I made a suggestion there... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal of support I have no reason to support this anymore, WP:UNDUE Lukt64 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. That we feature sport events that probably should not be featured shouldnt mean we also need to feature e-sports events to balance that out. I actually agree that the ITNR sports/elections stories that get posted here are not what should be the focus of that box, I think we need to focus on front page stories, but this aint that. I get why it was nominated, I understand the logic, I just think its going about fixing this in the wrong way, and giving more attention to these frankly trivial events rather than less. We ignore front page stories everyday here, I dont think we need to go to section B12 page 3 to balance out the ITNR stories that get a free pass on this page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ItN us not a newsticker, but instead to showcase quality articles about recent events in the news. We can argue significance for an event like this (and while I do think esports have been around long enough that we should consider including them but I recognize the counterarguments on that, as well as the poor quality of this article) but we are not here to promote only those stories that make headlines; this has been proposed before and not found consensus. We should be open to more stories that aren't typically covered on the front page of the news, but provide a quality article and something interesting to the reader. M asem (t) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Masem, I know your position on this. As I have repeatedly told you, I disagree with what you think is a. the history of ITN, or b. the purpose of ITN. And given ITNC is a place devoid of any governing policy or guideline, I repeat my disagreement with you and see no reason that either of us needs to attempt to convince the other. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coverage is there online sporadically but almost nowhere in traditional news media; expected since esports is an emerging field and this is one of the many championships therein but we cannot jump ahead ofthe curve, need to gauge significance when the media treats these as such. Gotitbro (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional issue The quality isn't there either for ITN, it's a small amount of prose followed by a slew of tables. We would expect a prose summary of the final for any other sport; this does not exist here. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised this hasn’t been noted more often, I cited it in my vote up top - regardless of notability, the article’s not even close to front-page-quality at the moment. The   Kip  19:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above discussions on coverage in mainstream media, as well as the sorry state of the article. The final needs an adequate prose summary, the same as any other sporting event.  Sounder Bruce  20:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Centuries123 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Hannes Strydom
Nominator's comments South African Rugby player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Prose could use some expansion besides listing teams/appearances. The only mention of his position comes in tables and the infobox.  Spencer T• C 23:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With only 270 words of prose, this wikibio seems a bit too stubby. Any more to write about him? Perhaps an expansion to explain what is in the table under "Test history"? Elaboration of his early/personal life (with REFs)? Also, he was inducted into the University of Pretoria Sports Hall of Fame, but the wikibio has no mention of his attending this university or what he did while he played for this university -- this gap in coverage of his life should be filled. --PFHLai (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 110th Grey Cup

 * Support Once a year event in Canada. Surprised Montreal won. Urbanracer34 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a game recap. We need to have one. The update is just the one sentence in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the above - there needs to be some prose detail about the match itself. Bcp67 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a frequent recurring headline in this section. Green  Runner  0  01:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until prose summary and aftermath sections are added.  Sounder Bruce  20:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I have added the game recap. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 04:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: A game summary has been added and the article is otherwise detailed enough. Cmm3 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be of sufficient quality – BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the addition of the game summary makes it a very decent article. Bcp67 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Argentine general election

 * Support A major political event for Argentine and South America in general. Trepang2 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. JM (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral No word yet from the official electoral body. --Bedivere (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality disgusting news. Although Massa has conceded, the secretary of the presidency has confirmed the results. So Milei's legitimate victory is more than evident. But the article needs a lot of work: prose on the results (both the first round and the second), and the reaction section. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good now. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * disgusting news WP:NOTFORUM JM (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally two words, not a speech. You have enough experience to see that in ITNR the rest of the editors usually briefly express their opinion without overflowing the intentions of this page. Read the rest of my comment. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, it's best not to bring in personal political opinions, especially when they are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * literally two words. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Two unnecessary words that have led to quite a few more words. We should all stop injecting our personal opinions here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the words have "led to quite a few more words" it is because someone decided to over-dimension them and generate a totally unnecessary controversy. It is curious that this has happened countless times and this case is being given an insulting notoriety. Focus on the rest of the comment I made, which is the important thing. It is totally unnecessary and unconstructive what you are doing. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a recurrent item and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good enough article, maybe a little table-heavy but the aftermath section will no doubt expand soon. JM (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support good enough on quality. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I'd support this even if it wasn't ITNR. This is a political earthquake for South American politics. The main election article quality is adequate and the BLP looks surprising good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Absence of any prose in the second half of the article isn't going to fly. --M asem (t) 02:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, the Opinion polls could really use some prose, but that's the only aspect I see as a problem. M asem (t) 15:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . Big news, but the election article isn't up to scratch. Would bolding Milei's article (which looks fine) and de-bolding the election work? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, we're talking about the election being the news, so knowing details of who was running and why this may be an impactful result, all factors of the election, should be the target article. M asem (t) 04:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Change to support. Recent edits (esp. to "aftermath" section) push it into "good enough" territory. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now 2023_Argentine_general_election is two sentences right now. Let me know when it's expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Today is a public holiday in Argentina. There might be significant aftermath tomorrow when the banks open, but I wouldn't think posting should be delayed for that. At any rate that section now contains several reactions to the result. Dakane2 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu It's now 10 paragraphs. JM (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's now enough to support posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yikes! Newsworthy, though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Yikes indeed. The article is a little table-heavy, but comprehensive and well-referenced. Still lots of potential for improvement, but enough for ITN. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 12:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, it's officially announced. Also the news is so important for South America and the liberal movement all around the world. Quality of the article is not perfect, but I'm not a perfectionist anyway. 3000MAX (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support great news. pretty significant event given the current state of affairs in world politics. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Wow, wasn't expecting that. Article seems fine, and definitely news worthy. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosalynn Carter

 * This may be premature. She is still alive as far as I can tell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Check the news? Like the Washington Post? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. I see this is just breaking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PBS and NBC are now reporting her death, I’ll update the source. The   Kip  20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it, sorry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Article is mostly well-cited (I spotted 1 CN tag) and has more than adequate coverage. Sad to see her go. ❤History  Theorist❤  20:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed CN tag on children; we should work on finding citations for awards before posting though ❤History  Theorist❤  20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the Awards & Honors section is mostly unsourced. That's the only place where I'm seeing a problem (there's one lone CN tag early on but that should be easy to fix. --M asem (t) 20:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - fixed most of the cn tags, one left but shouldnt hold anything up imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Couple quick fixes need to be done, but apart from that the article looks good to go. Terribly sad loss. Praying for President Carter. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality I have added cn tags in the Awards and honours section. Before we get carried away by emotions the article must be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, I also oppose blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality issues aside, I’d support going beyond just RD and blurbing. BhamBoi (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why blurb? What impact did she have on the world at large? Certainly not as much of an impact as someone like Ladybird Johnson or Nancy Reagen, and even those we'd not blurb. M asem (t) 22:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be entirely honest, I'm not really familiar with her work, but I just figured that since she received so much coverage upon her death, a blurb might have been worthwhile. But it seems as though that's a minority opinion so I'll concede to the consensus and withdraw my suggestion of a blurb. BhamBoi (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter (as a former US President) may be worthy of a blurb (though we can have that discussion whenever the time comes for him). As for US First Ladies, most are not "blurbable" IMO. Canuck 89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page  23:17, November 19, 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that the matter has been raised, Oppose Blurb: old woman dies. I said I would oppose blurbing Jimmy Carter; of course I'm not going to support blurbing Rosalynn. JM (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article does look sufficient. -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the Awards and honours section is still very unsourced. Once quality issues are fixed, support RD, neutral on blurb - depends on the level of media attention given to her death (state funeral, etc.) Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem as if the general consensus is against a blurb, but to answer your question on media attention of her death, she is currently front and center on the home pages of NBC, ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, etc. BhamBoi (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like a lot until we realize even CNN is run from Manhattan now. That's not to say the outside world isn't writing about her life today, too. You just wouldn't know it from that bowl of alphabet soup. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why Manhattan specifically? Hasn't CNN always been an American news network? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 12:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why so many companies started in Manhattan, but now I figure it's a case of "nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd". It does have a certain ooh-la-la. CNN was always American, but formerly more centred on the CNN Center in Atlanta (which still exists, but more like a WBD appendage than another heart and soul of TBS).
 * Also, I may have misunderstood you earlier, but should make something else clear: No level of corporate media empiricism is concentrated or widespread enough to dictate whether an iconic screen legend gets a state funeral afterward. That's a job for the District of Columbia. It and the Columbia Broadcasting System share a common nominal ancestor (now branded as an Italian), but the less we go down that rabbit hole, the better. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything? JM (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, one mustn't always accept the viewpoint of five companies from one borough of one city in one state as indicative of what the world (or even America) is watching. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true. Although they are (fortunately or unfortunately) considered major RS so what they publish determines what is WP:DUE from the American perspective even if they don't actually represent America at all. JM (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that, but more the opposite: if she has a state funeral, the story will be much more prevalent in media, and a death blurb would be more relevant. Not that media decide whether she'll have a state funeral, of course. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Provisional support for RD once the 6 citation tags are resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Nicaragua Miss Universe

 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds below JM (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. The   Kip  20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support These sorts of stories are underrepresented on ITN, and the article is of a good quality (only one CN tag). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Beauty contests have become a event of questionable merit (even if they have tried to move away from the sexualation of women) and thus not the type of thing we'd want to cover at ITN. --M asem (t) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Nicaragua OAS

 * 2 Nicaragua Blurbs, 1 Oppose - Unfortunately I don't think this is garnering significant coverage/attention and Nicaragua leaving doesn't seem to have much impact. We also don't usually blurb Miss Universe contests, so Oppose to both PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Update pending, i can agree. It's 1 sentence i added. However a major continental body exit is notable. Brexit apart, even, say, latvia exit is notbale.37.252.92.113 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The OAS is much less of a notable and significant institution than the EU. It is little more than a regional forum whetheras the European Union could practically be considered a Confederation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont see why our standards for blurbing international organizations should be "EU level". ITN seems to continuously trend toward blurbing the absolute minumum amount of material. That's why we recently went a week without a single blurb being posted. JM (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * of course it must be the standard. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why should it be? Who ever decided that? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 15:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just read European Union. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That answers exactly zero of my questions, and saying "just read [article]" is honestly not very respectful. Why must the standard for blurbing international organizations be that they should be "EU level"? The European Union article says nothing about what we should or should not do on ITN. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary that something that can be ITNR should be explicitly listed as INT-worthy somewhere. The EU article shows the unquestionable economic, social, political, banking, monetary, diplomatic, historical and human rights protection relevance of the European Union. I say that, before something that resembles it... the EU can be used as a standard of relevance. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't answer why the ITN standard must be that high. Of course the EU is extremely relevant, but why should that be the bar to pass? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which one do you propose? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Including the OAS and other international organizations of that scale? In any case, me proposing another criterion still doesn't mean that the "EU only" criterion has ever been an actual standard like you're suggesting, or anything more than your own proposal. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the actual standard, I said it should be the standard. A proposal _-_Alsor (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. A country leaving a major international organization is definitely notable. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above vote. The   Kip  20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality OAS' article is not in good condition and some work is needed. A country leaving a major international organisation such as the OAS (economically, politically and diplomatically relevant) is ITNR worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality per Alsor. The OAS article is in rough shape for referencing and would require a lot of work before it could be promoted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability per Alsor. Quality must be addressed JM (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per Alsor but support on notability. I’d much rather have this blurbed than the umpteenth recurring sports event. This is far more interesting.  Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  23:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there's no dedicated article to point to This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't articles with significant sections about the nominated blurb also qualify? JM (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it's not normative. In this case though, the point is moot given the extremely poor condition of the article on the OAS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest a Soft Close Absent dramatic improvement, there is simply no possibility of this being posted. The nomination could be re-opened by any editor if they feel the article has been brought up to scratch. But after taking another look at the article, I am not sanguine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be opening or closing discussions every time someone is interested. Most oppositions are for reasons of quality that can be fixed. Let the discussion continue. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Many citations still lacking. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. We've covered Brexit quite well on ITN. While OAS is less integrated than the EU, a country leaving the organization is still an important story. A dedicated article explaining the background would be in place. --Tone 16:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cricket World Cup

 * Comment Match is still going on. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Australia have won, in an upset. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Match finished. Congrats Australia on the win. 1solo2 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Prose for the match added, also ENGVAR altblurb. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support Australia has won the 2023 Cricket World Cup in one of the biggest upsets in cricket history. India Waalaa (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - the usual issue of a table within a table for the "route to the final" section, which is a MOS:ACCESS violation. Once that's dealt with, good to go. As an aside, I'd hardly describe it as "one of the biggest upsets in cricket history" as stated above... India were favourites on home soil, but anyone who follows cricket will know that you never write Australia off, and this is their sixth title now. Colour me not excessively surprised! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support VIBHAATH GUDTROT (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. I've fixed the above ACCESS issue myself, and no other issues - it's ITN/R, good prose and support !votes here. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm surprised this was posted so quickly - both articles need proper updating - there are paragraphs in both which are in the present or future tenses rather than the past. Bcp67 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the bolded article is required to conform to quality considerations, and I didn't see anything terrible there myself. I agree it's a fairly bare-bones article at present, definitely start class, but that's all it needs to be for ITN as long as there aren't missing references, orange tags or an absence of prose about the actual news item itself. Where are the present/future paragraphs you mention? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like they all have been updated now! Bcp67 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not opposing this blurb since it's ITN/R, but I think we should really have a discussion about how the current criteria mean that half our blurbs end up being sports events. ITN is definitely skewed in terms of news prevalence. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone's paranoid about ITN becoming a US/UK politics ticker, so instead we've chosen to become a 'disasters and sports ticker', vastly less useful for most people. For a section called 'In The News' we don't actually cover what's, you know, actually In The News very often. I think we need to have a discussion on making ITN actually useful for the general reader rather than strictly adhering to an extremely arbitrary criteria. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you want to propose a change, go to WT:ITN and propose it. See if you get consensus. Complaining on individual nominations isn't particularly helpful and definitely won't result in any sort of change. Secondly, sports stories are in the news - most media feature them quite prominently and in general they are of interest to a large swathe of the population too. The cricket world cup has |2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war exceeded the page views of the Israel-Hamas war by a large margin for the whole of the last month. And of all the sports events to be annoyed about, this is an odd one - the cricket world cup is really a big deal. in India in particular, the world's most populated country, this event is the single most significant sporting fixture on the calendar, ahead of anything else. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record I actually Support this nom for the reasons you said, my main point is that we have a massive lack of variety in what we post that often doesn't align with what is In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not seen the Indian news yesterday. AryKun (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong nomination to bring this issue up; I do think some sporting events should probably not be ITN/R, but this is a World Cup - the top event - in one of the world's most popular sports, which only takes place once every four years. Black Kite (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again I don't really think this shouldn't be ITN/R, I was just remarking how we had very strict criteria for anything non-sports related which led to sport stories (even big ones like this) being the biggest component of what we post. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 23:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sanjay Gadhvi

 * Comment: Needs additional prose expansion in career section; currently a resume in prose format.  Spencer T• C 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Too stubby with only 191 words of prose. And the Filmography section is largely unsourced. Please expand and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. Venkitaramanan

 * Support, everything looks referenced and it's a good length. Suonii180 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Daisaku Ikeda

 * Support. Article is well sourced and looks decent enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a collapsed list of hundreds of doctorates which generates 232 citations needed. I'd question the need for that much detail in the main article. Stephen 23:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Did not follow this comment, Stephen. Where are you seeing this collapsed list? Ktin (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the § Academic honors section. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks. It is an unbelievably detailed article for one that is not GA or higher! That said, I am in favor of moving that block into a comment section asking for volunteers to edit that before removing the comment tag. I tried doing that and broke something. Also, some minor "is" to "was" kind of changes might be required across the article. Tagging @Thriley. Ktin (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would making an academic honors list article be appropriate here? Thriley (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of forking out content only to solve the tags problem. Plus, I do not know the viability of an academic honors article / list by itself. Ktin (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think even if the list were cited entirely, it wouldn’t be appropriate to keep in the article. Something like this would be ideal: List of awards received by Gloria Steinem. Thriley (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have moved the honorary doctorates to List of awards received by Daisaku Ikeda. Thriley (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to "List of honors..." as honorary doctorates aren't awards. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) SpaceX Starship
The most powerful rocket ever launched. In the last test flight, the ship exploded before reaching orbit or even separating. In this test flight, all 33 engines survived (the most amount of engines ever on a rocket), a brand new hot-staging system managed to successfully separate Starship and Super Heavy, and orbit was reached. An incredible milestone in the history of human flight, not to mention being front page news almost everywhere. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once article quality improves a bit (more information is being released). Clearly ITN and despite the test not reaching all of it's stated objectives, it's a huge achievement which represents a significant milestone towards colonizing the solar system. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to posting any sort of space exploration items on ITN, but given the grand picture of what would be required, I have a hard time reading your claim of a significant milestone as anything other than hyperbole. Perhaps you could elaborate further on your point and on how you perceive the significance of this item. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SpaceX Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket in history by virtually every metric, and is set to return humans to the Moon as part of the Artemis program. This is a big step forward in spaceflight. Not only that, but the amount of news coverage alone and reader interest is enough to make this notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a rocket that has yet to succeed and hasn't actually taken a payload; its capabilities for doing almost everything promised are still on-paper; very much the "hyperbole" that Walt mentioned. By which metric, no, it's far, far from the "most powerful," since Sea Dragon comes to mind... Or any of the post-Apollo Nova concepts. Raw coverage & interest alone doesn't merit posting every single failure; this is ITN, not a corporate press release office. - Nottheking (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sea Dragon was a concept and never actually built so I don't really see the comparison here since we just witnessed the largest rocket ever built fly to space. The stated primary objectives of this launch was to have a successful launch and separation of the second stage reaching orbit. While the orbit wasn't completed, SpaceX always sets the bar high for tests to push their engineering teams to deliver iterative improvements on each flight. https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-second-test-launch-nasa-congratulations -- while many news outlets are calling this a failure, many experts see this flight as a success.
 * Obviously this flight is not being promoted as a success by MSM, and I can't speak to why they would put spin on this story. Nevertheless, I'll be interested for the ITN posting in the event they hit every objective. I predict many of the objections to it will be based on, "nothing new to see here, they've already done most of these things." I suppose we can just wait and see. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of the articles that I see covering this say that it exploded shortly after reaching space, and considered a failure. eg, . M asem (t) 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also not seeing how ITNR works here. This was the second test of that rocket model, so even granting that SpaceX being its own "country", that first ITNR for space exploration doesn't work. M asem (t) 14:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm... - As Masem said, the spacecraft went kablooey again. Now if that was understood and considered to be part of the mission objectives, then okay; but from what I understood, one of the primary objectives was to conduct a partial orbit and it was not able to reach orbit insertion. The mission profile was an hour and a half long, and it got only eight minutes into its flight plan. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs work Per the FT, it seems reasonable to say that it reached space but claiming orbit seems too much as it self-destructed before crossing the Atlantic. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed mention of orbit and success to avoid controversy. Regardless of this, it's still incredibly notable and arguably ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PrecariousWorlds: Could you please explain why you think this is ITN/R? It doesn't fit any of the three criteria for spacecraft:
 * A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
 * The launch of space stations or installation of new major components thereof
 * Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations
 * ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. I didn't realise that 'First and last launches of any type of rocket' was removed from ITN/R. My bad PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as it's been pointed out a few times already, today's test wasn't the first launch anyway. - Nottheking (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But it was the first to actually reach space.2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:F081:843D:6379:C90D (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Personally I don't see another exploding unmanned spaceship as being that significant. We're still in the test phase. Let's wait until something is actually achieved. Nigej (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, also Not ITN/R How is this substantially different from the first flight test? Getting all 33 engines to light & separated appears to be all that changed from the first test flight. Which also brings to the point of claiming ITN/R; if we go and check, we see just three criteria:
 * A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
 * The launch of space stations or installation of new major components thereof
 * Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations
 * This does not fit under any such category. While I am assuming good faith that the poster thought that a deprecated criteria still existed, ("first and last launch of any rocket") this likewise isn't even the first such test. Since we have prior events to go on, it wouldn't be surprising if this is followed by yet more failed tests in 2024; posting this would basically indicate that Wikipedia intends to post every single failure, at which point ITN becomes more of a press release office for a private company. - Nottheking (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the two votes above. Unmanned launches aren’t much of a milestone anymore, and it’s not even the first test of this specific rocket. The   Kip  17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already posted the launch of the rocket system once (probably should not have) and nothing significant enough has happened to denote every minor error correction from the former on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the flight was not successful, and no major records (such as "largest non-nuclear explosion") were set. The only records set on this flight were "most engines ever lit at takeoff" and "tallest rocket ever launched".  It didn't achieve the primary mission objectives, so the Saturn V still holds the title of "largest rocket ever successfully launched". --Carnildo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak support: I'd like to see ITN include more things like this which are actually in the news around the world even if not earth-shatteringly significant, rather than the usual diet of death, destruction, and sports news. It needs more balance and more light, and this is something that has got people talking, made headlines around the world and seems as good a place as any to start improving ITN. 2A02:C7E:30F9:A600:45E2:C463:2CAC:15B0 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not every single SpaceX rocket launch needs to be ITN. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Space X has made over 80 launches so far this year so we're nowhere near reporting every one of them. See List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another SpaceX launch and nothing really of significant significance. Centuries123 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb it when it actually does something. JM (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - simply not notable enough for ITN, maybe once it's actually successful? Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Karl Tremblay

 * With only 257 words of prose, this wikibio seems a bit stubby. Anything else to write about this guy, please? --PFHLai (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gohar Ayub Khan

 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still 10+ {cn} tags. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) ChatGPT maker OpenAI ousted its own founder from the company

 * Oppose Not the first and certainly wont be the last founder of a company to be ousted. Don't see the importance that would warrant a posting. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 03:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - big news in the tech world, but unless we know WHY he was ousted, I don't see any reason to post this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose provincial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until we find out why he was ousted, as per Rockstone. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Rockstone Equalwidth (C) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose substandard blurb. not written in the correct tense and its written as two sentences. Substantive oppose changes of CEO are not significant enough for ITN. JM (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the advent of AI is the biggest and likely final event in the history of the humanity, and he's at the forefront. --5.44.170.53 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that relevant. Business affairs, being business affairs. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I'm reopening this discussion because details are now emerging and it seems not to be just a routine power-struggle or money-grab. For example, see this NYT report: "Ilya Sutskever, a respected A.I. researcher who co-founded OpenAI with Mr. Altman and nine other people, was increasingly worried that OpenAI’s technology could be dangerous and that Mr. Altman was not paying enough attention to that risk..."  As AI is an existential risk for humanity, such governance issues are highly significant.  Also, as OpenAI was founded as a non-profit and is still controlled by its board, its governance will be of special interest here, as Wikipedia has a similar structure and goal.  For more details, see the most recent sources such as Details emerge... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; pushing a startup founder out because the board believed they were focused too much on growth and not enough on safety and ethics is a significant story, and warrants inclusion on the main page. BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose run of the mill story, only minor coverage in the articles linked . Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now an article about the specific event. I have updated the nomination to focus on this rather than the more general articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment on coverage striken, still not convinced of the significance though. Polyamorph (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is there a standalone article on this!?!? Failure of NOT#NEWS and NEVENT. M asem (t) 13:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's get the creator's input... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then take said article to AFD. BangJan1999 16:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not literally have to wait years to write an event article in order to satisfy those policies. Mach61 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Pretty massive advent with AI, starting to look like a big deal. Lukt64 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Corporate leadership changes aren’t ITNR-level, even if it’s a media-darling subject like AI. Discussion shouldn’t have been reopened, but it’s par the course for who did. The   Kip  20:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose they just removed him from his position. That's basically it. There's nothing here that will change many people's lives.  TomMasterReal  TALK 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ana Clara Benevides

 * Doesn't qualify for recent deaths, which requires "a biographical article". This is not one, which is why it's titled the way it is.  We might IAR it, but that'd need consensus here. —Cryptic 03:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose and close RD requies a biographical article per Cryptic. It has to be a blue link that dies, not a death that gets a blue link. This person is only notable for this one event, dying at a concert, which is why the article is about the event, the death. A death article could ONLY get posted as a blurb, but this is not even close to reaching even the most minimal standards of ITN for blurbing. JM (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claude Kahn

 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Everton F.C.

 * Oppose The blurb doesn't explain this and neither does the article update. It seems that it has something to do with the club losing money but it's a curious sport that penalises you for that.  Me, I'm more interested in the 10 grid penalty given to Carlos Sainz in the Las Vegas Grand Prix but so it goes... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose How is it "obviously" needed? It's one team losing points in a country-wide competition. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 10:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose no bolded article, no article about the topic, the only line about this in either article is one single line within a large unrelated section of the first article, a non-ITN/R sporting event... and isn't notable enough for ITN. JM (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's one point more than the previous record for Portsmouth in 2010, so the headlines of biggest deduction in history are true but not groundbreaking. We still don't know if it will be enough to take Everton down in May next year, and that's not a notable thing either as three teams go down every year. The real thing will be whether the 115 charges against Manchester City are proven and whether they are stripped of all their trophies in that timeframe. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Simply doesn’t meet the bar for ITN blurbing. The   Kip  17:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:SNOW? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with WP:SNOW. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Liberian general election

 * Support, especially alt blurb Hoping for a peaceful transfer of power! Article seems in pretty good shape, although I'm guessing it's time to add an Aftermath or Reactions section! (As right now it finishes with the table-heavy results, maybe a bit of prose or analysis by sources?) Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. Altblurb looks better. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb ITN/R, good enought article, original blurb is more concise JM (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb (Weah name recognition). I added a line of prose before the results table, but more could still be said. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. Makes sense to point out that the incumbent was defeated here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb change of head of gov is ITN/R, and article seems adequate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. Quality is not great, but OK. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality is far from being ok. The results section needs more prose and there is no section on reactions and afrermath. Especially considering the historical post-election violence that has existed in the country. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Alsor. The   Kip  17:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment In the results section, only the presidential runoff has prose. Given that this is about the presidential part of this election, I don’t see this as a showstopper. It is, however, of concern that there isn’t a reaction or aftermath section.  Schwede 66  16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Work has been done to expand on reactions and aftermath. I want to thank for being WP:BOLD and adding that bit to the article. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looks pretty good rn Dadijo2002 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Concerns raised by some opposers has been addressed and consensus to post now exists.  Schwede 66  15:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) CRISPR gene editing
Extremely important first in the world of medicine, being the first CRISPR-based gene therapy to be approved anywhere. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 23:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, there is an expansion tag at "Alternatives to Cas9" subsection that needs resolving before posting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: A. S. Byatt
English writer. Her article is lengthy and well referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is surprisingly in good shape for an in-depth one. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A notable writer, a fine article. Trepang2 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ❤History  Theorist❤  00:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment excessive use of quotes (MOS:QUOTE) lifted from the Guardian article Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Just found out—Ōe, Amis, McCarthy, Kundera, now A. S. Byatt. The article is in good shape and can be posted. Didn't see above comment since I was on mobile. Article needs work Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  17:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you removed the too many quotes tag saying "there is only one quote" but there are multiple quotes throughout the article, see this earwig report. I'm confused as to how this is acceptable? Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull per above unless someone can give me a valid reason why this is ok. Polyamorph (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Presumably Stephen only counted the large blockquote. As the tag was an unhelpful drive-by not supported by any talk page discussion, specifics or consensus, and this is quite a high-profile subject, reverting it was a sensible action.  Pulling the article from RD would not be sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted here the earwig report BEFORE placing the tag, so no it wasn't a drive-by. One user changed their !vote in response. There is far more than one quotation. Polyamorph (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The thousands of readers seeing the tag on the article aren't going to come to ITN for an explanation. The article's talk page is the place to post and discuss clean-up issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but is. And he's the one that posted it. I raised the concerns here, one user responded to them by pulling their support, then it was posted without comment. It's potentially copyvio. Hence it would be good to have these concerns addressed before posting, instead of dismissing me as "unhelpful". Polyamorph (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is the copyvio, not the tag. The solution to ITN articles having major issues is not to hide the tags to make them appear better than they are. Removing the tags because it is a "high-profile" article and may scare the readers is just dishonest, and not a sensible action in any way. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 12:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I appreciate that might have missed my initial link to the copyvio report, but then they also seemed to somehow miss all the other quotations integrated into the main article text. The fact that they are all quotations is the only thing that stopped me reporting it as blatant copyvio. Hence the tag. Polyamorph (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Admin needed I have re-added the tag. There remain too many excessive quotes from the article http://theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/25/as-byatt-interview earwig report for current revision. I am disappointed at the lack of response to what is potential copyvio. Polyamorph (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes are quoted and referenced. Stephen 07:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But there's far too many of them. Per MOS:QUOTE. Too many quotes can be considered copyvio. Polyamorph (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ”May be considered” Stephen 09:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by that. MOS:QUOTE is pretty clear: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words.. Please can you actually address my concerns, as you are coming across very dismissive. You removed the tag on the basis of it being "one quote". I've demonstrated that it is many more than one quotation, integrated throughout the article. As the one who holds the authority to post or pull, I expect an admin to take copyvio extremely seriously. Polyamorph (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Pulled - yes, like Stephen I was a bit sceptical about this at first, but looking more deeply at the article, it does seem to be littered with quotations, some quotes by Byatt and others direct pulls from a source in lieu of paraphrasing and writing things in Wikipedia's own voice. That doesn't seem right, and I agree with Polyamorph that such should not be present on the main page. The article should be looked at urgently too, and if the issues can't be handled, then the material in question should be removed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Thomas J. Bliley Jr.
Former congressman and mayor from Richmond, Virginia. Needs source work and prose expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Article needs more sources. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Bullet-points after the prose are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Pedro Sánchez reelected as Spain's prime minister
Normally I wouldn't nominate something like this as I would probably consider it to have been covered by the posting for the election. The election was posted in July, but it rolled off of ITN after a couple hours. Changes in head of government are also WP:ITN/R, though not as part of a general election, hence I didn't list this as ITN/R. Though, considering that it's been several months since the general election and the article for that rolled off relatively quickly, I figured this should have a chance. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent article and we haven't had a blurb in over a week. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above Lukt64 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Extremely Weak Support Taking note that Sanchez's BLP makes no reference to the scandalous circumstances under which he was able to secure the needed support to remain in power. That's a huge miss in an article about a head of government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The govt formation article is good enough, and a clean-shaven gent in a nice shirt and tie could replace Mr. Nascar / Wabash / Ford Motor Co. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If image change is all that is wanted, the Myanmar article has some. And do not really a problem enough with Blaney to base of the notability of this on that alone. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't supporting the Sánchez nom just to get rid of Blaney; the story of the four-month negotiations and the PSOE succeeding where the PP couldn't stands on its own merits. And there's an AltBlurb still to be written that succinctly captures that. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we posted this as part of a general election, and the head of government did not, in fact, change, because he was reelected. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, Pedro Sánchez was and still is PM of Spain, but I think this story is more then just about Sánchez, it's about a multi-month government formation. I'd be fine redacting the mention of the election itself for this reason. And, as much as I hate to be the guy who pulls this card, but I think the slow news cycle does make this a little more reasonable to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 Support Alt2; just because it's ITN/R to post an election OR appointment of a PM doesn't mean we can't post the end of the months-long struggle for the reelection of a PM outside of ITN/R. JM (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt government formation months after election, will be of interest to readers. Polyamorph (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurbs The currently proposed blurbs give the impression that this is just business as usual. But when we ran this before, we posted the picture of a different party leader because their party got the most votes.  And so the King gave them the first crack at forming a government but their vote of confidence failed to pass.  Sanchez then got a chance and the real news is that he's got further by doing a controversial deal with Catalan separatists.  So, any blurb for this needs to summarise why our previous selection didn't work out and how this one has. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This was pretty big news, but as the above comments mention, it's mostly notable because of the investiture coalition he formed. I'd propose ALT2 "Pedro Sánchez is reelected as the prime minister of Spain, after making a deal that extended amnesty to members of the Catalan independence movement". --Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither the blurb nor the article itself actually covers the controversial circumstances surrounding his re-election - and if you look at the news stories, that is ITN rather than the re-election itself. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominated article is quite extensive and includes sections such as 2023 Spanish government formation. What more are you expecting? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ALT 2 per @Grnrchst. The formation of the government is notable in addition to the election itself (already posted) - but it is only notable because of the historic nature of the deal made. That's what is ITN worthy and it therefore needs to be in the blurb. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very undecided I've never been in favour of blurbing the results of the same electoral process first and then who has become prime minister. I'm not convinced by the idea of including something about amnesty in the blurb. There is no doubt that the amnesty proposal has generated a worsening of the tension and mistrust in the country (the rejection of the most important associations of judges and magistrates, bar associations, state lawyers and other actors involved in the Spanish judiciary; the subtle request for a coup d'état by more than 50 retired military commanders and the recent riots in the streets of Madrid), but it's just a political investiture agreement that, I believe, will not have much of a future (absolute majority in the Senate of the opposition party and a possible challenge before the Constitutional Court). Perhaps we can talk about it if it becomes a reality... _-_Alsor (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2. The blurb is quite long and I encourage further discussion regarding shortening that.  Schwede 66  22:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could change "after making a deal that extended amnesty to members of the Catalan independence movement" to "after extending amnesty to Catalan independentists"? Same information content but slightly shorter. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Separatists" would be a better (and shorter) word than the somewhat unusual "independentists". Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've changed it to read "after extending amnesty to Catalan separatists ".  Schwede 66  00:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Current blurb is okay except I think it wasn't worth it to remove "making a deal" for the sake of brevity, readers who aren't familiar with parliamentary systems might read this as some weird non-NPOV point we've decided to make. Maybe change to something like, Pedro Sánchez is re-elected as the prime minister of Spain, in a coalition agreement that extends amnesty to Catalan separatists. Davey2116 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this proposed revision JM (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, makes it more clear how the parliamentary coalition process worked. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 10:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why was this posted? I don't think there was consensus for it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even with a simple number count, at the time you added this comment the discussion was at 10-3-1. I would also say that there are only two true opposes, with the other concerned only with the blurb formulation, versus only one "extremely weak support". I see a clear consensus and endorse 's post. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the current blurb is highly confusing. It says he was re-elected, yet the article linked is about government formation. The election was ages ago and we already posted it. Should be reworded to reflect what's actually in the news, i.e. That he made a deal and has now formed a coalition etc. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He was not re-elected as PM in the general election, because PMs are not elected in general elections. He was re-elected in the sense that the Cortes Generales finally approve of him being PM again after months of failures. JM (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ken Squier
Needs expansion. thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Most bullet-points after the prose are unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neville Garrick
Needs expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Article is a basically a stub and is way too short for ITN. Looks better now. Changing to Support. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 11:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * started expanding. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I think it's good enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded it to start C class. Polyamorph (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, good work on the expansion! Looks good to go for posting. Tails   Wx  15:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Worta McCaskill-Stevens

 * Posted Stephen 22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Doda bus accident
A bus crash with a rather high fatality rate; it got its own article, and ITN is very un-dynamic right now. JM (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose At this stage, no clear indication this event will have long-term consequences, so a failure of NOTNEWS and NEVENT in creation of the article. Seems like an unfortunate accident but that's all. --M asem (t) 05:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per bus plunge and WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We have posted similar bus plunges recently, so am not sure why this one specifically is objectionable. Not posting bus plunges altogether is one thing, but it would be nice if we were consistent. Curbon7 (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm opposing bus plunges in general. ITN has a pretty skewed notion of what is or isn't notable. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 10:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall, WP has gotten far too excessive on covering small minor news events that do not have long term impacts or will not be a significant topic 10+ years from now, which is against NOT#NEWS and NEVENT. Things like these types of traffic accidents. We're trying to cull those back both across WP and at ITN. So consider this a WP:CCC type situation. (and why ITN guidelines say to not evoke "We posted X, not why Y?") M asem (t) 13:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Rwanda asylum plan
Country-level politics, but with far reaching implications. Plus, we haven't had a new blurb in more than a week. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 00:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "no new blurb in over a week" is a terrible justification for posting. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily in my opinion. WP:ITNPURPOSE: [4] To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Wikipedia doesn't appear very dynamic right now if ITN is the measure. The newest blurb is a week old and the oldest is 2 weeks old. I feel that ITN newsworthiness standards may be able to be lowered slightly if they're so high that nothing at all gets posted for over a week.
 * (Not to say that this particular article should be posted -- I am neutral on that.) JM (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have very arbitrary rules for what should be posted, to the point where we barely blurb anything useful to the average reader. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to both comments above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Rwanda scheme has been dead for a while, this is just the final proverbial nail-in-the-coffin. Additionally, most of the legal objection seems to center on Rwanda not being stable rather than the idea of relocating asylum seekers to other countries, so I'm not sure the implications are broad in that sense. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons I give above. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Run of the mill domestic politics and legal case -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was an international agreement of exchange between the UK and Rwanda, not merely a domestic affair. JM (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: its the cancellation of an international cross-continental exchange program established by two national governments. And we need dynamism in ITN, not the same four blurbs for over a week straight. JM (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot force the creation of news so this dynamism argument is invalid. M asem (t) 05:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot force the creation of news, but I think we can lower the high high standards of newsworthiness at ITN just a little bit in order to have a corresponding raise in dynamism. This is the latter, not the former. JM (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How are we forcing the creation of news? Is this not already on the front page of many significant news outlets? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am simply saying say that "ITN has been stale" is not a valid reason to promote blurbs. Nothing about this specific blurb, just the argument in general. M asem (t) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I do think there's a case to be made. The purpose of ITN is to direct viewers to relevant articles to current news items. Even if there's a slow news week, we should seek to keep up with current stories as much as possible, which could potentially mean lowering our (rather arbitrary I'd argue) standards of notability in order to best serve readers. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, news is happening in the world. It's not like the BBC's world news page hasn't posted anything this week. It just doesn't always measure up to what a few people here think "real news" is. WP:ITNSIGNIF says as much: "" So yeah, I'd say an assertion of enough importance + "ITN is stale" is an acceptable argument that's grounded right in WP:ITNPURPOSE. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - In The News, major international agreement. I do think that there is a good case @JM2023 is making here, while we shouldn't post this solely because the current blurbs are stale, it is a factor. We should keep up with what is in the news, even if its a slow news week (which is becoming an increasingly rare occurance these days lol). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per JM. Polyamorph (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Migrant and refugee issues are ongoing everywhere. For example, Finland is closing its border with Russia for this reason.  So, if we cover this, it should be done in a more general encyclopedic way, rather than cherry-picking one incident.  And the UK ruling is not the last word as the government is now planning to pass emergency legislation and this will likely be tested by further legal action. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps there's some way we can combine all of these migration issues into a blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be WP:SYNTH? Just propose the Finland border closure as another blurb. JM (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point I might just want to propose it, although I'm not sure it would fare too well. Something like the Rwanda asylum plan is on a much higher notability level than a "simple" border closing. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I proposed the Indian bus crash knowing it would probably not get consensus to post just to give an oppurtunity for a new blurb, but it's up to you. I have no plans to propose it. JM (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've looked at the article, it's not even a full border closing, only some checkpoints. That definitely can't be put on the same level, you can't use routine stuff to argue that a much more notable event is "cherry-picked". Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Finland was given as an example because it had just been reported in the news. But it is not isolated and the point of the other source is that such events are widespread and common.  For more examples, I just search the news to turn up the following reports from within the last 24 hours:
 * Rohingya refugees reach western Indonesia on decrepit boat
 * Inside a Lebanese refugee camp...
 * Hundreds of Afghans evacuated from Pakistan ‘dumped’ in military bases...
 * Refugees in PNG told they will be evicted next week ...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it was an example, no need to be condescending about it. My point was that it's a bad example, and that you can't just put anything related to refugees on the same level. What's newsworthy was the plan itself, not "something related to refugees happened", which is why you can't really compare it to random other examples.
 * Two events aren't close to being of the same importance just because they both have "refugee" in the title. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 10:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The nominated issue is quite minor as these things go. It concerned a flight of just seven people and the ruling was just an administrative issue: "there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe".  So, the government will just make that assessment and back it up with further agreements and legislation as necessary.  The operation will continue and the lawyers will continue to bicker about it but it's quite a small impact when you consider that about 1% of the world's population is displaced -- over 80 million people. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a significant change in cross-continental policy. If this is not noteworthy enough for ITN, especially on a slow news week, I don't know what is. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisecars727 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per JM's "just a little bit". Moscow Mule (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: N. Sankaraiah
Indian Politican Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thrown in a CN tag in the early years section. Rest of the article is sourced, but it won't hurt to expand it more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 11:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please a take look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. More depth needed about political career, such as what he accomplished in the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly or with the Communist Party after 1964.  Spencer T• C 05:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arthur Simon
Christian Pastor who founded Bread for the World. Article is a stub and needs expanding; I will attempt to help. ❤History Theorist❤  02:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Seidler
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support His article is very sparse/basic, but it is fully sourced. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Patient made the majority of his wealth from his career at Seidler Equity Partners, but limited information about this part of his career is included in the article.  Spencer T• C 15:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * His notability comes from owning the Padres. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support While more info could be added in terms of his pre-Padres career, article is well sourced and not a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  21:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Subrata Roy
Indian businessman who founded Sahara India Pariwar.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced. Enough prose. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  19:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Date and place of birth is sourced by Medium.com, which is WP:RSPSOURCES.  Schwede 66  21:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66: Someone else added another source for the birthdate. I've removed the Medium source, and tagged the birthplace.  Seems one (or even a few) unsourced statements shouldn't preclude posting. —Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  15:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ociel Baena

 * Oppose in current state: barely 200 words. Moscow Mule (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * wait article was created after this person died. brings the subjects notability for having an article into question. could be nominated for deletion soon. JM (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:JUDGE, they're likely notable. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  15:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * and perhaps tangential, but the article says they dont know if it was homicide or accident and theres no evidence of third-party entry so "tragic killing" is speculative JM (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Same deal with Vivian Silver, which is marked "Ready" below. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support First non-binary judge in Latin America, article has substantially been expanded since nomination. Definitely RD worthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. - José Gnudista (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article in a very good shape and well-sourced. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Title of the submission has been changed to their full name, why? Shouldn't it be their preferred name (which matches with the article title) instead? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply. Not true. I changed the target article following a page move (discussed on its talk page) in this edit, but the original nomination used the full legal name from the outset, and that I didn't touch. Maybe it was a breach of protocol to change the target article; apols if that's the case, I just wanted to skip a redirect. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you for the heads up, at the time I had nominated the article, a variety of news sources that I had seen their name referred with using their deadname. For example, The Guardian's "Jesús Ociel Baena, who used they/them pronouns, was celebrated across Latin America for their work to advance the rights of the LGBTQ+ community" and I had thus presumed that was their preferred name. Since that information is now outdated I will update the RD nomination to reflect their preferred name. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready Unreferenced date of birth / place of birth.  Schwede 66  21:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated with sources regarding their birthdate and birthplace. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Ready to go. Good job. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Don Walsh

 * Supportonce bare URLstag is removed. Article isn't perfect, but only has 2 cn tags. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  17:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Outstanding cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have nominated the article and later I tried to fix/set some of the missing cn tags. However I found out later in that process that a significant part seems to be copied from the website https://www.bluebird-electric.net/submarines/SeaLab_US_Navy_Underwater_Research_Laboratory.htm. The article should be carefully reworked byy an experienced native speaker.Yeti-Hunter (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Snowclose due to what Yeti-Hunter has just said JM (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tengiz Kitovani

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, AGF on off-line references.  Spencer T• C 17:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vivian Silver

 * oppose died over a month ago 5.44.170.53 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITNRD "Recently died" means their death was announced within the last seven days. Her death has just been announced so she qualifies for RD despite having been killed over a month ago. consider withdrawing your !oppose? JM (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support yes, she qualifies for RD. Article looks good enough. Terrible news. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - cited enough and still qualifies for RD per JM2023 ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited enough. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-cited, comprehensive article. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A well-referenced article; qualifies for RD per JM. Nsk92 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above JM (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(Will be posted) Ongoing: Myanmar civil war

 * Support once blurb rolls off. The simultaneous offensives and seeming slow collapse of junta forces has kicked up media coverage of the war enough. The   Kip  22:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait I would wait until the ITN Blurb expires, then I think it would be good to add. TheTubaTitan (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support after blurb rolls off - Per Kip, unless any significant major events happen before then PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support at rolloff per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Supportonce blurb is off. The civil war has been receiving significant coverage for some time. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  18:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once Blurb Rolls off Others make the point above. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support at roll of per The Kip
 * <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 13:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support at rolloff per above Lukt64 (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * While acknowledging that every item in Ongoing has some element of WP:CRYSTAL in it, I've got to ask - how long do we expect to keep this here? Myanmar's been in a civil war since 1948. —Cryptic 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been insurgencies since 1948, yes, but the civil war we're talking about is the fight against the military junta (& Tatmadaw) since 2021. Once the blurb rolls off and we can post it to Ongoing, we should use the same criteria as for other items there: if the fighting slows enough so that we don't have newsworthy updates, say, every week (like it was before Operation 1027 started), we can remove it from Ongoing. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 20:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support after roll off. Per all of the above. The civil war is once again getting significant coverage considering that soldiers from the junta army have either attempted to defect or have surrendering to the rebels. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 12:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there consensus to post this to ongoing once the current blurb drops? BangJan1999 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. Russell Ballard

 * Support After a cursory glance at the article, I think it looks fine. ❤History  Theorist❤  18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of suficiant quality. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for all reasons listed above. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficiently news worthy passing 2601:681:0:470:DDB2:C459:6FEA:D73B (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Newsworthiness is irrelevant to RDs. Newsworthiness is only relevant to blurbs. Yet another reason why they should be split apart. JM (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural support meets requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maryanne Trump Barry

 * Support I did a quick scan and the article seems fine. Unlike most RD articles this one seems to be OK (because the proximity of the subject to a very controversial and divisive political figure makes it interesting to various editors probably) JM (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Adequate for RD. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support good enough. AryKun (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a second Source 10 is taged as "unreliable source?". It would be good if it could be fixed before posting her article. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ready to go _-_Alsor (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * S-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UK cabinet reshuffle

 * Support Biggest news out of british politics since the king's coronation early this year Lukt64 (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to it not being important enough. It's interesting that Sunak has sacked Braverman, moved Cleverly & brought Cameron - who hasn't been an MP for over 7 y - back into the cabinet. However, it doesn't have much of an effect & there's no indication of significant policy changes as a result. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support First time a former PM has served in cabinet since Douglas-Home Alextheconservative (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a cabinet reshuffle? Seriously? This apparently last happened less than a year ago, so this is definitely not notable enough. Just the fact that the Tories are currently well past scraping the bottom of the barrel for whoever they can shove into a ministerial post does not make this worth posting. AryKun (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We do not post US cabinet level firings and we are not posting this. Cabinet reshuffles are one of the most common things out there (we have already had 5! in the last two years in the UK alone the article tells me); that a former UK PM has now become a minister (not the first time either) is not the main story and should not take away from the routineness of it. If David Cameron's appointment is what this is nom is based on, it should be a separate ITN nom, though I doubt the "comeback" (WP:CRYSTALBALL) of a former top dog would be notable enough. Gotitbro (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not an infrequent event in the current government. Polyamorph (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the joke that made no one laugh. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Amusing, but perhaps more suited for DYK. Davey2116 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Cabinet reshuffles are not ITN-worthy. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose although interesting to see British politicians continue to act like they're all in The Thick of It, a cabinet reshuffle is not significant, and a former head of government who quit way back in 2016 taking a new, different, lesser job in 2023 is not significant. JM (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-Closing Support - It seems strange that for a section literally called 'In The News' we don't seem to cover what is actually in the news often. We're not a UK Politics ticker, instead we have become a 'Tragic Disasters and Sports' ticker. Can anyone please tell me with a straight face that the Japan Baseball Series is more notable and generated more coverage than this? See you next week for the Uzbekistan Darts Championship or whatever we post next instead of something actually useful to the general reader PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - don't understand some of the opposes here. Unlike most of the rubbish that gets featured on ITN, this is historic, and most importanly, encyclopaedic - Cameron coming back, Braverman being sacked again and Sunak gearing up for an election will shape the next decade of British politics if this delivers a Labour win. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Labour win a foregone conclusion? ITN isn't a UK news ticker and shouldn't become one just because the Tories keep finding dumber ways to create news. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * will shape the next decade of British politics if this delivers a Labour win.
 * WP:CRYSTAL. If we’re posting this because of what it might do, now that’s rubbish. The   Kip  18:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Major changes at two of the Great Offices of State. And because blue man drives car faster than anyone else has been up there getting free advertising for five days. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because Brits call them the Great Offices doesn't make them great. Every country has the exact same offices and replaces the people occupying them frequently; what makes the UK doing this in any way notable and not just DYK trivia? AryKun (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Most people in the UK could not give a flying fig about this "news". Let alone the rest of the world. Polyamorph (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic level politics and not a significant enough event to merit ITN blurbing - cabinet shuffles are not an unusual event. I often feel that accusations of “pro-American/British bias” on ITN are badly exaggerated, but posting this would indeed be a prime example of said bias - we would almost certainly never consider posting the same for any other country. The   Kip  17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the seventh new foreign secretary and seventh new home secretary since Brexit, and the second time in just over a year that the same woman has left in controversy. Yes Cameron is recognisable, but were John Kerry and Hillary Clinton posted as recognisable new secretaries? This would not be even suggested for posting if it was in a non-Anglophone country of similar population and influence such as France or Germany, or probably even if it were in India or China Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only interesting thing about this is the Government being so devoid of actual talent that it needed to bring back Cameron over 349 other MPs, I bet they are really happy. Oh, and a minister for anti-wokeness. You couldn't make it up. Actually, I'm making it sound newsworthy.  It isn't. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

India tunnel collapse
Yes, the original incident happened several days ago, but it was not nominated/posted. Seems to be garnering a lot of worldwide coverage, especially around the ongoing rescue efforts. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment – the article could do with an expansion.  Schwede 66  22:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is still little more than a stub. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) First successful eye transplantation

 * Support in principle once the article is brought up to front page standard, clearly a huge scientific achievement and it was in the news all over This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Having a successful eye transplant is a notable event in medical and scientific history. Rager7 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now due to quality of article but support on notability. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  20:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Due to quality issues, but support in principle due to this being a notable event in medicine. Centuries123 (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that this was initially misleading. It isn't as notable if it is only cosmetic and the eye itself doesn't function. Centuries123 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support on notability per above. Genuinely significant medical breakthrough. The   Kip  21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I read about it, the more it seems this is a misleading story; it's uncertain whether the patient will actually regain sight in the eye, making this effectively an advancement in cosmetic surgery rather than the breakthrough I initially believed it was. As such, switching vote to oppose. The   Kip  05:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose if nothing else but on quality. Lot of work still needed with the article. But I will say, if this is indeed a "watershed" moment in medicine, the article should make this clear. But from a surface-level perspective, the patient in question can't see with the new eye. I think this story becomes more more notable if that happens. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, cosmetic surgery, being blown out of proportion by the media, the eye cannot see. Stephen 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work It seems that that it was more of a face transplant. The eye seems mainly cosmetic and the chances of vision in it seem uncertain and small.  And it can't said to be successful until some time has passed to check for rejection and/or recovery.  Also note that eye transplants have been done in other creatures before and so we'd need to make it clear that this is for humans, if claiming a first.  See here for some history. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The article definitely needs improvement, but this is certainly a notable event. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. its a face transplant with a side of hype. The eye will not be able to see; it's shameful that the doctors hyped this lie to the uneducated dolts in the lay media. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose misleading; the transplanted eye is not a functional organ; it's an advancement in face transplantion rather than a revolution in opthalmology. JM (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with JM2023, very misleading. According to the article linked, the recipient Aaron James hadn't even regained sight in that eye and the optic nerve isn't even communicating with his brain. Sure, it's an advancement in face transplantation just like JM2023 pointed out, but in no way is this really revolutionary. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose assuming the eye is non-functional, which makes it a cosmetic advancement rather than a functional one. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that Human eye is also a function. Certainly not the most impressive or best-known thing they do. But definitely mechanical and structural, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are eye muscles functional parts of eyes? When people talk about eye function they mean vision. Do lungs count as functional if they're moving due to the diaphragm and intercostal muscles even if they're not exchanging gases? JM (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Partially functional, yeah (or dysfunctional, in pessimistic terms). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Roman Čechmánek

 * Oppose for now Work is needed in citations, merging the bulleted lists into prose, and proofreading the prose (I noticed "an embarrassing 8–0 loss" as one phrase to fix) – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: He was already an established goalie in the Czech Republic when he joined the NHL at the age of 29 in 2000. With so many lines of pre-2000 stats in the stats table on this wikipage, having just a single sentence in the prose to summarize his pre-NHL career does not seem to be adequate coverage. The medal table also indicated that he won two medals representing his country as a junior, but his junior career was not in the prose either. --PFHLai (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Raphael Dwamena

 * Oppose Orange tag that needs to be addressed. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A single-sentence lead? Four {cn} tags? Please beef up the intro and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * do people just nominate every dead bluelink now? many RDs proposed are nowhere near sufficient quality for ITN/RD posting. JM (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some noms are meant to bring attention to fellow editors that certain wikibios need work and have potential for use on RD. It's okay.  Better than missing out candidates. --PFHLai (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Muhammad Azam Khan (civil servant)

 * Comment: Several sections in the article needs sources. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 09:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Two entire paragraphs including a section are unsourced 67.80.40.19 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose One inline-when tag and two citation-needed tags. Otherwise it looks okay, could absolutely use more sources though. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire start-class wikibio has merely 5 footnotes? Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Iceland earthquakes

 * Oppose without lack of any significant deaths or damage. 5.x quakes are usually not that devestating. --M asem (t) 07:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait With the town of Grindavik under evacuation due to the heightened unrest, I'd say this bears watching. UPDATE: A "State of Emergency" has been declared in Iceland. Jusdafax (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose no one died and there's barely any damage. The predicted eruption will be more significant, we'll see just how significant if the time comes. JM (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: This regards the imminent eruption of Fagradalsfjall right? Would the article (and this ITN point) be better suited for it, if it was to happen? Ornithoptera (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem like if there's an ITN story here, it would be the eruption which would be accompanied by quakes. M asem (t) 14:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. No major event has happened (yet), but one is expected in the very near future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose by WP:CRYSTAL for the eruption and by the lack of any significant impact for the earthquakes. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited known impacts and WP:CRYSTAL applies for the unknown. The   Kip  03:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose since the earthquakes are not major, and the article is not high-quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: War in Sudan

 * Support The Sudan war continues to have far reaching consequences, so it deserves this place. DaddySpaghetti (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support reinstating the "Ongoing" item at a minimum. I'd even support blurbing Ardamata massacre, if the article were sufficiently expanded, as it's a significant event, even hypothetically assuming the lower estimates of the death count are right. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and I would gladly encourage a blurb mentioning the recent events (and the ongoing genocide if possible) once the relevant article gets expanded. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and I agree that Ardamata massacre should be blurbed if the article becomes long enough. It's difficult to find many people who are interested in this war. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would recommend that we start with a blurb over the Darfur incident, and then re-assess whether there's enough media coverage to keep the war in ongoing. This is only judging by what I am seeing at Google News, that Darfur activity spiking the coverage for now, but I don't immediately see that the overall war has gained near-daily news coverage prior to that. --M asem (t) 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the 2023 Israel–Hamas war began, the media & public have become much less interested in all the other current wars, so none of them are likely to receive major coverage daily for weeks. Does the current increase in violence mean that there's a Second Battle of Geneina this month? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The new escalation in Geneina is the 2023 Darfur genocide. Also, just because theres no major media coverage doesnt mean its not a big deal. Thats like saying that the Myanmar War isnt a big deal. It is. Lukt64 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's mostly about the war in Gaza, but more because the other wars (in Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine and Ethiopia) had mostly stalled at that moment, and recent developments in Sudan and Myanmar will likely impact their respective media coverage. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wars in Myanmar & Sudan are major, but they have never received anything like the level of international media coverage or public interest that Israel-Hamas does. The first two receive no demonstrations, whereas the latter receives hundreds. Ardamata massacre & 2023 Darfur genocide are far too short to post. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but I would put the link to the Battle of Geneina article instead. Subaru2000 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In ongoing, a battle by itself is unimportant. Lukt64 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok! But just saying that we should atleast list it somewhere on the box, such as on the blurb. Because the Masalit genocide in Darfur in centered around the whole battle. Subaru2000 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment : surprised that there isnt any opposes Lukt64 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Although this may be a little stale, the renewed fighting is certainly noteworthy and is worthy of Ongoing Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just because a new theatre of a war opens doesn't automatically mean notability. If this makes headlines, then we should post a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously significant even if not headline news. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * im making a user protected request due to some dummy doing some stuff Lukt64 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroyuki Hosoda

 * Support Well sourced. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page  21:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. No problems found. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've thrown in a 3rd {cn} tag. Please add more REFs. Also, this wikibio shows quite a few job titles but is thin on what the subject did while in those offices. Any info on his accomplishments, etc. please? --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai, I've added the citations and I've searched for a while but there is not many accomplishments that are note mentioning. Most news sites are mentioning Hosoda's controversial information during his term as speaker. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Midori No Sora, for the new materials. --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks satisfactory. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Ruffo

 * Support updated and well-referenced article. Happily888 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not So Fast Also an actor, meaning it has a Filmography section, meaning what it usually does. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved. I think it's ready now (just 1 cn tag left). Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Nuttall

 * The personal bests section is unsourced, so is the table after those bullet-points. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Resolved the citation issues. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda Hirshman

 * OK InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Short lead, needs at least a sentence or two more.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Better now? Innisfree987 (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted RD): Frank Borman

 * Comment from nominator I intend for this to be a RD nom only, but just curious, he was the first of 24 men to fly around the moon, so just out of sheer curiosity, would that merit a blurb? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder to wait until the article is definitely up to RD quality standards before any blurb discussion is allowed to take place. BangJan1999 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears as though the quality of the article looks good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I got somehow notification on this comment. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was a hidden ping attached. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How? Kirill C1 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Check the comment in the editing view. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good for RD. Quality not an issue. Was daily featured article on Christmas Eve the year we didn't know what was about to hit us. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And yes, blurb. Apollo 8 had all the achievements (first manned flight of the Saturn V, first to leave low Earth orbit, first to reach the Moon); Apollo 11 was just the photo-op after completing the parking maneuver. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, time to make the plunge. Support Blurb. One of a trio who were the first people to fly around the moon. Yes, this has been outclassed since by Apollo 11, but Borman was, for a time, one of three who had accomplished the most amazing feat in space travel. Oh, and I think quality looks good enough now. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added and Support Alt1. A bit janky, but I think Apollo 8 is a better target and avoids the nebulous "one of the first" statement. Could use a little adjustment. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article quality is more than sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Person known widely only in States. Not a top of his field.Not as widely known as other cosmonauts/astronauts. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. Borman was the second most senior member of his very distinguished group, and the best known until Apollo 11. Sadly, very few astronauts are household names today (probably only Neil and Buzz), but their fame is not restricted to the United States. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not widely known outside of United States. Maybe someone knows them, but it's not the level for blurb.
 * And he isn't transformative figure, it's not like he built on his achievements. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Undecided on blurb We've struggled before on people like this, but I imagine in the end only Apollo 11 and maybe Apollo 13 astronauts would be the most likely blurbed, unless Borman took the famous photo from this mission, which may be more important in his case. (I checked, he didn't. It was another one of the astronauts.) However, article is RD ready in my view. Actually, he does have a connection to Apollo 11. He was the NASA liaison to President Nixon, and is responsible for Nixon's phone call to them to be short, and to the point. And Apollo 11 is one of those moments in history that everyone in theory watched. TheCorriynial (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * RD Only, oppose blurb Not really a reason to merit a blurb. Most of those who went to the moon in some way have either died or are advanced in age. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Featured article, so in unusually good shape. A couple of IPs added his death to the article yesterday, but without sources so I reverted them. Kept checking the news every few hours yesterday. Finally confirmation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Jim Lovell is now the oldest living NASA astronaut; he will overtake Borman as the oldest ever in two weeks. Lovell has the distinction of serving on both Apollo 8 and Apollo 13. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Quality is great. That doesn't mean it should be blurbed. Nor does being "one of the first to fly around the moon". What are we doing here? Clearly we nave no group consensus of who should or should not be blurbed on their deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And for what it's worth, this i why I added the alt. He wasn't just "one of the first", he owns a share of being the 1st to fly around the moon with James Lovell and William Anders. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That was big news. In 1968. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not especially the most recognizable in his field nor did he transform the profession in any meaningful manner. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This person's actions changed the world. His death does not.  Our article reflects that; the updates consist of a single sentence added, another removed (oldest living former American astronaut), tense changes, and formatting. —Cryptic 22:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb per Hurricane Noah. Elisecars727 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Cryptic <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb First to get (along with two crewmates) to the moon, spoke to the largest human audience on Christmas 1968 in an address that moved an entire planet. Featured article on a genuine hero. Opposes are unconvincing at best. Jusdafax (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Outside his time as an astronaut, there is very little lasting impacts of his life on the rest of the world. We really don't post blurbs for someone that did a significant notable first. M asem (t) 23:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the first living being to get to the Moon. That honor goes to some tortoises on the Soviet Zond 5 spacecraft. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem and WaltCip. The   Kip  22:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb We shouldn't rush to close this discussion as the news seems to have spread slowly. For example, the BBC report was only 19 hours ago.  And some of us were specifically asked to wait before joining the discussion.  Reasons to post a blurb or picture include:
 * The subject is vital
 * The Apollo 8 mission was historic "...because it was the first time humans left the Earth's orbit, losing sight of their home planet" and he led it
 * The article is FA quality
 * The current top blurb and picture have been up for over two days for a routine sports event which took place six days ago and so it's time for a change
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. The closure was premature, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no particular reason to close the discussion at all. If editors have something to say then we should not obstruct them.  And if no-one has anything more to say we can just let it ride and scroll off, as happens to most nominations.  I'm now going to add an update to the older Portuguese PM nomination as some time has passed and so we have more news reports with updates on the event. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply being the commander of single moon mission doesn't really meet the type of significance we expect for RD blurbs. M asem (t) 22:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See Neil Armstrong who commanded a single moon mission. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Armstrong did a whole lot more than his time at NASA and has a very respectable legacy section to state that he was more important than simply being a moon mission commander or the first to step on the moon. M asem (t) 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Armstrong wasn't blurbed because he commanded Apollo 11, he was blurbed because he was the first human to set foot on the Moon. Besides, we didn't have RD then, though I'm pretty sure we'd blurb him anyway.  We'll likely blurb Aldrin as well; and I'd support blurbing both the last man from the Apollo era to walk on the Moon to die and, if different, the last one to reach lunar orbit or further to die, especially if those happen before Artemis 3 and Artemis 2 respectively.  But, like it or not, Borman doesn't have the enduring fame of any of those, even if you accept mere fame as a reason for a death blurb. —Cryptic 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Armstrong did little of significance after Apollo 11. When he was blurbed, the discussion said nothing of a legacy; instead the comment was "he has not done anything notable since".  So, he was blurbed for leading that mission, just as Borman led Apollo 8.  Borman then became president of a major airline after his astronaut career but that's not really his main claim to fame either. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At that time (2012), we didn't have the wholesale problems of RB blurbs, at that point we only posted significant RDs as blurbs (the current "post all RDs" only started in 2016). So really, trying to compare the Armstrong posting to this one is non-sensical. M asem (t) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb old man dies. JM (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Notable life, non-notable death. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb While very notable in space exploration, I don't think this merits a blurb per above. Centuries123 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob White (cricketer)

 * Support The article looks fine, AGFing the book source and the paywalled cricket archive sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Valentina Ponomaryova

 * Oppose There's 4 statements lacking a source in the article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Louis Oster

 * Oppose The article is lacking citations throughout. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Marcus Besen

 * Oppose I spot checked the sources and the sources in early life and education don't confirm all the info there. Also I can't locate the source 5, 7, 8 or 9 online. Even if we AGF that those exist, I still don't think it's ready as there's still 2 cn tags and the failed verification from the early life section which I just added. Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Myanmar Civil War - Operation 1027

 * Ongoing This has been classified as a major war in the List of ongoing armed conflicts for years. The fatalities so far this year are shown there as about 12,000 – comparable with the Gaza and Sudan conflicts. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Hamas-Israel War has only been going on for less than a month not counting the initiating genocide of Israelis -- hardly comparable to casualties spread over more than ten months in Myanmar, even if those numbers are right. And Sudan is not even in the ongoing section. JM (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sudan war has been in Ongoing and is nominated again due to events like the Ardamata massacre. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it was there a month or more ago, and I know it's nominated again, but the point is that it's not there right now, it hasn't reached consensus and been closed yet, so I don't think it's logical to cite it as a reason to put something else in ongoing. JM (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the point was that these conflicts all have a similar scale and, as major wars with much mayhem, should be expected to appear in Ongoing. And so the Sudan conflict is now back there too. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When I say "the point" I am referring to my point, which, again, was that using the Sudan war as justification for putting Myanmar's war in ongoing is illogial because Sudan isn't in ongoing (and there's nowhere in your original !vote telling me that you saying with the Gaza and Sudan conflicts indicates you wanted Sudan to be there too, but anyway...). It doesn't matter now, Sudan is up there again as I expected so it's a moot point. (and also, as I pointed out, wars are not of similar scale if they have similar amounts of casualties despite lasting vastly different periods.) JM (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, as an ITNC vet Andrew is not worth engaging with. The   Kip  20:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Something should be in the box, it's just not a blurb because as mentioned it's stale. Banedon (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing – I am pleased with the ongoing expansions on Myanmar civil war (2021–present) in the past month, and I would've loved to blurb Operation 1027, but alas... I'm not sure which one is the better Ongoing target, though the latter is seeing more intensive updates. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's definitely more scope to add for the war overall than just 1027-relted events. However, I personally feel the civil war article is a bit long and hard to follow as it is right now (and partly due to lack of overall war analysis RS that we can structure based on).  EmeraldRange  (talk/contribs) 12:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Long running conflict, yes, but we do blurb events that are out of the norm for a particular conflict (e.g. Israel/Palestine incidents). This appears to be a major flare up with large cities such as Sagaing going outside of the military government's control. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a pretty big deal, and might actually result in a new government. Lukt64 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, oppose ongoing - Ongoing is for items that are consistently making blurb-worthy news. This is the first time an event in the Myanmar War has been nominated. We shouldn't immediately put blurbs in ongoing, wait for it to roll off and if it still has significant coverage, then put it up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This conflict has not just been nominated before; it has been posted. See this, for example, "...an armed conflict that began in 1948 is a very big deal..." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is for items that are seeing a significant amount of editing over a long period of time. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, more specifically, that the topic is in the news on a near-daily basis. There may be daily edits but those could be equal to small updates from local news outlets. In contrast, despite it not being the center of worldwide attention, there is near daily news coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war, which is why that's still in ongoing, as well as the current mess in Gaza.
 * This specific news event feels ripe for a blurb, but not ongoing because the civil war rarely gets significant news coverage on a daily basis. M asem (t) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, tentatively support ongoing&mdash;If this offensive becomes a protracted military engagement, or something that drags on for an extended period of time, then I would support an ongoing. If the offensive fails, however, then a single blurb will be sufficient. Kurtis (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The offensive may have started two weeks ago, but it shows no signs of slowing or abating and has in fact increased in intensity over time. The effective and successful collaboration of multiple rebel groups and the capture of critical border crossings on the border with China elevates this to blurb level notability. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What date should we hang this on when placing it in the list on the main page? Just putting it at the top is unlikely to be appropriate, as it is not chronologically the most recent. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 15:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's where it gets a bit vague: the operation is still ongoing and notable events still occuring even though it stated a while ago. I'm personally fine with either ongoing or a blurb, because you can make the case for both. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Support as this seems like a major escalation in the war and merits coverage. Also, wonder if an Ongoing nom would be appropriate when it rolls off This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and assess ongoing later. Myanmar has been in a 75-year state of near-constant civil war, so I'm a bit skeptical on immediately jumping to ongoing, but this is certainly a significant development in the conflict against the junta. Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, Oppose ongoing. If there was an ongoing addition, it would be better to have Myanmar civil war (2021–present) or something similar as it discusses the long-term civil war instead of one operation. Suonii180 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with this assessment.  EmeraldRange  (talk/contribs) 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For those asking for a blurb, what exactly is the in the news blurb, for something that started 2 weeks ago? Stephen 03:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've proposed an altblurb that attempts to deal with that. The   Kip  23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing Although I'm not sure about posting about an event that started 2 weeks ago, this is certainly Ongoing-worthy due to the notability. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing, Week Support Blurb <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, also support blurb, even if the item itself is a little old, the developments are definitely news-worthy. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 21:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed altblurb that somewhat deals with the issue of the offensive beginning a few weeks ago. The   Kip  23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kudos! Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb This offensive has resulted in developments that are blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Australian Optus outage

 * Oppose A brief outage of telecommunications is neither not the type of news for ITN, nor what WP should be covering in a separate article. --M asem (t) 04:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is over 9 hours really that brief? It affected many major services throughout Australia. This is not the first article of its kind, either, another similar event in an article is 2022 Rogers Communications outage. Fishonlegs (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. If half of American's went offline we would be posting about it; we should do the same for other nations. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we really shouldn't, unless it was associated with a more nefarious act. This is the type of "first world problem" that we should not give any signal boosting towards without clearer signs it was a significant issue. And in ten years, is anyone going to remember this? Contrast this to something like the Northeast blackout of 2003 which has gained a reputation of a problem with the US's own power system. M asem (t) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something like the 1977 New York Blackout I think would've been posted though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Manhattan blackout of July 2019 wasnt, though it was DYK'd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCDONT #2. The   Kip  06:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. If it was a few days perhaps, but it was less than half of one. The   Kip  06:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this shouldn't even be an article. Secretlondon (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral to posting but to say there shouldn't even be an article is shortsighted. There were widespread implications across a G20 country - no corner of the country wasn't impact. Major hospitals lost departments, public transport systems were impacted, tens of thousands businesses across the country lost a day's worth of business due to EFTPOS machines being down, critical public safety hotlines were down and sizeable populations lost access to emergency phone services. Australia will be counting the cost of this for days and weeks to come. 124.150.88.221 (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * '''Support per User:BilledMammal's reasons. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't rise to ITN notability in my opinion. 2001:2020:319:7C8A:65E3:D5B5:1DD0:63C2 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this affected 10 million people for a significant period of time. If that's not enough, we might need a WP:MINIMUMAFFECTED that's > 10 million, and exclude stuff like the Lucy space probe, since the number of astronomers worldwide is much less than 10 million. Banedon (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The existence of this article touches on WP:Notability (events), where it's unclear whether this incident will be remembered one or more years from now. In that sense it straddles the line of encyclopedic value. It is clearly showing a weakness in Australia's telecommunications systems so I am sure an in-depth investigation will follow. I don't like crystalballing on the long-term significance of this incident, but I do see a solid little article that is a nice feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Big story, but affected a relatively small number of people for a relatively short time. Mind you, far more notable that posting the conviction of someone who practically no-one had heard of before his crypto scam ran out of luck.  There's Wikipedia demographics in action, though. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah that only got posted because of the editorship demographics, not even the readers. was an odd thing to post among 5 stories supposedly "in the news". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not exactly a slow news cycle to be running this. Gotitbro (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough for an article, let alone ITN. Elisecars727 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - even if it were a few days, outside of an act by a government (either foreign or domestic) doing this a la Egypt during the 2011 revolt I wouldnt consider a service disruption significant enough to post here. If this were a cyberattack maybe, but this? Nah. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Igor Judge, Baron Judge

 * Support It's barely sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Resignation of Portuguese Prime Minister

 * Support, pending expansion of his second term subsection. I haven't looked over the references in either of the linked pages, and thus far I've only skimmed through his biographical article, but the resignation of a country's head of government is virtually always ITN-worthy, especially if it's due to alleged corruption. Kurtis (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment if we posted Johnson's and Truss' resignations, we should post Costa's. But his article needs a lot of work (see Second term section), although the article on the corruption investigation looks very good. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the new prime minister is known and post it then. Johnson’s and Truss’ resignations were mistakes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until at least tomorrow, as then we'll know what Parliment plans to do and thus how fast we expect a new leader. --M asem (t) 01:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when new PM is chosen as change of Head of Gov't is ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the new prime minister is offiically announced and post it then. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above, then post as combined blurb. The   Kip  06:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarifications A) As Portugal doesn't have a Westminster system (as some of the comments imply), what's happening next is that the President of Portugal is doing consultations today and tomorrow, and will decide tomorrow what will happen next. He can either appoint a new PM, or (more likely) dissolve parliament and call for new elections. In the latter case, it could be that Costa stays on as caretaker PM for some time. B) For me, the circumstances of this resignation make it ITN-worthy: the PM didn't resign because of a political coup within his party, but because close associates and members of his gov are the target of a corruption investigation, and he himself may be questioned. Happy to also consider making the corruption investigation article itself the main one for this nomination, if that makes more sense. Khuft (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The resignation is historic and noteworthy. It has been presented already, so there's nothing to wait about it. When a head of state changes, it gets posted, but this is not a change in the head of state and considering it as such is thus undue. What this is and what this nomination is about is the resignation of a Prime-Minister due to a corruption scandal. That resignation, not the appointment of a new head of state, is what's to be debated here. 85.240.222.144 (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Retarget The corruption investigation should be the primary topic as it appears that the PM is not the main target of this. As he has not been found guilty or convicted of anything specific, we should avoid giving the impression that he has. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should not have posted the resignations of the UK PMs and the US house speaker, should not post this now. ITNR exists and we should make use of it i.e. wait for a new head. About the corruption, I would be very vary of BLP issues in highlighting mere investigations on the front page. Gotitbro (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The House Speaker didn't resign, he was kicked out of his position, and that was the first time in 236 years (since the the US Constitution went into force in 1787) that it had happened -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And a prime minister is thirty thousand times more powerful than the HoR Speaker. For the record. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already had this discussion once, but I guess we'll have it again. That's simply not true in the Presidential System that the US uses. The Speaker of the House is the head of the legislative branch, it is the closest position to a Prime Minister that exists in the US. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is true (and note that I didn't mind the publication of McCarthy's ousting). The various parliamentary systems we have in Europe don't work like you seem to imagine they work, and they're different amongst themselves as well. Portugal doesn't have a Westminster-style system like the UK, and France (for instance) has a semi-presidential system that's different again. In this particular case, the US equivalent to the Portuguese Prime Minister is the US president. Both are the heads of the Executive. The head of the Legislative in Portugal is the President of the Assembly of the Republic (currently Augusto Santos Silva, in case you're interested) - he sets the agenda for parliament and decides what gets put forward to vote - ie. similar to what the Speaker of the House does in the US. Typically he'll be of the same party (or coalition) as the Prime Minister because the basic tenet of parliamentary systems is that the head of the executive enjoys the confidence of the legislative branch. There are more intricacies to the whole Portuguese set-up (e.g. the role of the mostly ceremonial President of the Republic, who has some reserve powers such as dissolving parliament; the interaction between executive and legislative branches; etc.) but I'm sure you can learn about those here on Wikipedia, should you be interested. Long story short: saying that the US Speaker of the House is equivalent to a Prime Minister in a European parliamentary set-up is simply not correct. Khuft (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * just because it is "close" does not mean "it is". _-_Alsor (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The closest position to a Prime Minister in the US is the President, who combines powers usually shared by both the President and the Prime Minister in countries having both. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 21:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I'm repeating what others have said, but a prime minister in a parliamentary system is head of government, like in Portugal, so is equivalent to a president in a presidential system where a president is head of government, like in the United States. There is no equivalent of the presidential Speaker of the House in parliamentary systems because the presidential Speaker's power is a product of the separation of powers, which does not exist in a parliamentary system. The presidential system's Speaker operates at a power level between a parliamentary Speaker and a Prime Minister -- he is merely the leader of a legislative assembly which can be overruled by both the Senate and the President. JM (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Update Checking back on this, the FT reports that there will be a "snap election" in March of next year and, in the meantime, "Rebelo de Sousa said he would delay the dissolution of parliament and Costa’s formal conversion into a caretaker leader to allow the passage of a budget package on November 29." So, the can is being kicked down the road some way per "mañana".  Like the speaker situation, this is going to be ongoing for months. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you wanted to add some ironic twist with your slightly condescending "mañana" remark, in particular given it's in Spanish instead of Portuguese, but the President's decision is not wholly unexpected. Getting a budget approved in time has become a talismanic event in the annual Portuguese political calendar, since the Financial Crisis. Also, the Socialist Party will need to elect a new leader after Costa's resignation, which take a few months in accordance with party statutes, and had asked for a later rather than earlier election date. Khuft (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that Costa remains in power until this budget is done and that's weeks away. And he will continue to be PM until next March. As "a week is a long time in politics" we should not announce Costa's resignation until it seems more certain. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. We should post it like we posted US speaker McCarthy and UK prime ministers resignations. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And, to top it off, it turns out that the prosecution got confused when transcribing the wiretaps and blamed PM António Costa when they shouldn't have. Judge Costa, chasing a António Costa, blaming an innocent António Costa...the beauty of surnames. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Anyway, this ITN candidate is going to be obliterated and copied into the archives in a about 2 hours so there's no chance of this getting posted in any case. No point in even bothering to close it. JM (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The new guy's article is even worse. But I've added an altblurb and that Euronews source, just to make it clear upfront that at least one of them is probably innocent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Melbourne Cup

 * Oppose - there needs to be some detail of the race beyond just the bare result. Bcp67 (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Target article is mostly just a big table. Winning horse's article is also a tiny stub, which is not a terrible issue as it isn't the target, but this could be improved upon as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is effectively a stub. The   Kip  18:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The page is basically a stub at the moment. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub JM (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we don't post stubs.  Schwede 66  23:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Shuster

 * Posted Stephen 21:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antoni Martí

 * I'm working on his article. I will try to expand the content and add the missing sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support work done. Article seems ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - thanks for the edits, Alsor ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harald Heckmann

 * Support Well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ryland Davies

 * Support Well-referenced and good enough for an RD posting, although there should be a source for his date of birth. 2001:2020:319:7C8A:65E3:D5B5:1DD0:63C2 (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stephen, thank you for fast posting. I wanted to add recordings before nominating. I added Martin and myself to updaters, and Smerus deserves credit as creator because he was first to write a bio that was not copyright violation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 NASCAR Cup Series

 * Support, notable as the WRC championship posted below. Article just needs the final round summary. Tableguy28 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)s


 * Support as perennial, but remove the "US" designation as unneeded. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead needs updating to mention Blaney's win, and the final summary is missing and tagged as such. Stephen 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work Too much PR proseline of the form "On, announced ". And lot of predictive commentary about things that "will" happen.  Did they? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the table for the drivers’ championship results is WAY too wide. Is this the norm? Couldn’t it be split or smart-arranged into rows? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Relatively niche domestic competition. Article seems to contain a lot of PR/Branding but that may just be the nature of theese things.  –DMartin  17:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR. Your first comment is not relevant as the event has been deemed sufficiently worthwhile to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say not very niche, as more coverage than, say, the WRC championship posted not long ago, or the Indy 500, and on the same level as the F1 championship. INTR. Tableguy28 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * F1 is about 20x bigger than NASCAR because it's a global sport. See How America’s Favorite Motorsport is Losing its Grip. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going into the extremely contentious topic of F1 vs. NASCAR because it's really off-topic. Point is, INTR. 2021 iteration was posted, so this should be. Tableguy28 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The event was not posted last year. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Andrew is right. This needs work. Beyond proseline, I also see MOS:PSEUDOHEAD violations in #Season summary, plus there's no prose for Round 36. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and shouldnt be ITNR. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page then. BangJan1999 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? Please give us your reasons. Tableguy28 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCDONT. The   Kip  19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it isnt even the biggest Nascar story of the year. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NASCAR Cup Series asserts that it is, in its very first sentence. Or do you mean the Daytona 500?  I could see an argument for that, but we've already skipped posting it this year; if we were going to switch to that, it'd make more sense to post this, quality permitting, then switch for next year. —Cryptic 04:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not nearly as consistent in following NASCAR as before, but what is said story? DarkSide830 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Daytona. Yes, it’s not the overall championship, but it is far and away the biggest single nascar story each year. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I dunno about that one, even though I'd argue NASCAR is less watched for the championship itself then the actual run-up thereto. And I'd argue the biggest single-game story this year surrounded the Grant Park 220 and the oddness of it's conception and winner, though wasn't blurbable either. But that's just me, and again may be skewed by fandom of the Cup Series. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm pretty sure we shouldn't have Main Page articles that are mostly written in bulletpoints. This should be prose. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many sporting events on the ITN lately. It's Wikipedia, not the sports newscast. Trepang2 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/R, if you have issue with this, please take it elsewhere. "Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." glman (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * THANKYOU! sports, sports, sports, something that happened a month ago, sports... 142.165.199.65 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've always thought sport news wasn't news, but a deliberate and cynical distraction from the news, but this event in particular seems a peculiar one to draw the line at. (Aren't we at the six football finals in a row time of year at ITNR?) —Cryptic 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it’s as if whenever a blurb is from the US someone tries to find a reason to oppose it. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have addressed WP:PROSELINE concerns by splitting a vast majority of the material written in bullets. I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article is mostly written that way; only the sections concerning Team, driver, and rule changes. Concerns about notability/"it's sports" can be raised at appropriate venues. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And every cup series article is written this way. Hardly a problem, IMO, because that section probably reads poorly in paragraph format. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about raising a point like this, but figured It'd be easier to just split (something which I've advocated for in the past for that section in past years' articles) than come up with the right words to express it. Thank you. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read over PROSELINE again, I'm not sure that it even applies to this article, given the examples used in that essay, and that this is not something easily converted into WP:WEIGHTed paragraphs without removing information vital for WP:V. Regardless, my personal longstanding opinion still favours splitting this section. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:ITN/R. Article is significant enough to post, and has been improved to address issues. glman (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment about the PSEUDOHEADs is unaddressed. And Round 36 is an empty setion with no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just converted that section into a definition list. Had to write a Kotlin script for it. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * has posted the Round 36 summary. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to clarify some comments from above. The bullet points are somewhat abnormal, but this is normal practice with Cup Series articles. 2021's nom was posted with little issue with the same format. The article does need some other changes, but this should not be an issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems to have been sufficiently cleaned up. The   Kip  18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't see any references from 'Results and standings' down? Stephen 01:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this didn't stop you from posting the similarly-referenced 2021 article 2 years ago (funny, I also see a !vote which acknowledges that avoiding proseline in these articles is hard to do in there), but I've gone ahead and done my best to satisfy this, too. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good to go now. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Japan Series

 * Image licensing I tagged it, asking the uploader to submit permission, as it lacks metadata, is low res, and the PNG extension draws suspicion of a possible screen shot.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Koji Chikamoto.jpg
 * Whomp whomp. This --> appears to be the only other option we have for the MVP. There's also a not very good crop of it. Many other players from the teams have great photos. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Don’t see any issues with the article. Considering the issues, we can post without a photo for now and leave the Bankman-Freid pic up. The   Kip  18:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Hot topic on the Japanese news at the moment. Article is in good shape and I see no problems. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is notable and the article is in a good state. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Hanshin Tigers fans have waited quite awhile to see this. Article seems fine. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job everyone on getting this article updated, and also for finding the rare sporting event photo that doesn't have sponsorship rubbish splattered all over it. Looks like we went with the manager rather than the MVP which, while unexpected, isn't a horrible choice. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Using an image of the manager is a perfectly cromulent decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Gaza School Airstrike

 * Oppose&mdash;Obviously a horrific tragedy, but it's still one among numerous that have been going on over the past month. It's also not the first time Israel bombed that particular refugee camp. The Gaza War has its own ongoing, and unless there's something exceptional about a particular incident, the ongoing will suffice. Kurtis (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is very thin and in poor shape, we have the article 2023 Israel–Hamas war in on going, this seems to be enough for me. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Israel–Hamas war is already listed in Ongoing.  This is just one incident among many. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing, and really should not be a separate article from other attacks, even though in this case this sounds like the numbers of dead/injured are verified by being a UN school. --M asem (t) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Copa Libertadores final

 * Oppose on quality Effectively just a few tables. Needs a full prose update. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Barely any text after the lead. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still only 170 words of prose? Way too stubby for ITN purposes. Please expand this wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose beyond the lede. The   Kip  18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality While I think that sporting events like the Copa Libertadores deserve a spot on ITN, the article needs to be fixed up before I can support this. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's listed at WP:ITNSPORTS, so the only issue is meeting quality. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose stub JM (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Salman Habaka

 * Only 149 words of prose? That's too stubby. Need more about his career. Please expand this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t feature stubs on the main page.  Schwede 66  13:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose page is simply too short. Will reconsider if there is significant expansion.  Bremps  ...  22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article isn't THAT bad, I think it could go up PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ITNQUALITY: Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page. I also oppose. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Oussama Falouh

 * Only 224 words of prose? That's too stubby. Need more about his career. Please expand this wikibio. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, but the article is way too short for ITN posting at the moment. Needs expansion and the orphan tag needs to be sorted out. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There's not a WP:SNOWball's chance of it being successful if I did nominate it for deletion due to the emotion involved, but I struggle to see the notability of this player and there's very little information pre-dating his death. There are transfer reports yes, but I had to use a primary source for his second loan to Avranches and a passing mention for his transfer to Wydad just this year. Was anybody writing about how and when he was playing? The player made 22 appearances in the Championnat National (third division, amateur) which was his highest achievement in France, and unless the data is just lacking on every database, he didn't even play a game in Morocco's league. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bubba Copeland

 * Support For a relatively new article, it is well-sourced. Their death has also received widespread coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I question the title of this article under BLP1E. A mayor of a town in the US is not automatically notable and only has become a name in the news over the issues of his death. That said, renaming to "Death of Bubba Copeland" would be more appropriate since his death has been widely covered, and that would still allow an RD here. --M asem (t) 01:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD requires a biographical Wikipedia article, but it would no longer be one if it was instead a "Death of" article. That said, there has been no consensus yet to rename.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Nepal earthquake

 * Oppose on quality Article feels a bit short. The   Kip  03:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What about now? JM (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been expanded sufficiently Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * seems like there's no opposition with regards to the recent expansion and development. Tagging this as ready. Can an administrator post this already? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, sufficient expansion, significant death toll. Brandmeistertalk  08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article due to the high death toll, despite everything else being quite unclear yet Quake1234 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article with enough expansion. — Stewpot  ( talk ) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Deportation of undocumented Afghans from Pakistan

 * Wait As I understand it, these Afghans were already subject to arrest and deportation from Pakistan and so this issue is not new. The intention and plan here is to make it happen in a bigger way. But lots of countries have problems with migrants and refugees and then announce get-tough policies to address them.  But the trouble seems to be that it's not so easy to actually implement such policies and so the problems drag on or become a revolving door.  As this is a contentious topic, I reckon we need something more than a policy announcement. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. That is a LOT of people being FORCED to leave, pretty rare. This could have pretty big consequences for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lukt64 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait leaning oppose - without getting into it too deep, the article states which to me makes it sound like this is more the deportation of undocumented immigrants instead of the expulsion of an ethnic/national group ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was going to support but now leaning oppose per Mike's justification. But this might be one we want to simmer a bit more, so I'll go wait as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * leaning oppose per Mike JM (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 because this is a significant amount of illegal immigrants being deported so it's still news; I would only support Alt1 though, as this is not specific to Afghans per Mike JM (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support My understanding is that this isn't just a policy announcement - its the actual expulsion being carried out. Reuters states this is approximately 4M Afghans and its being referenced in multiple places as an expulsion of one specific group. Barely see mention of any other groups of immigrants. Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Per VOA, Pakistan's caretaker Foreign Minister Jalil Abbas Jilani said the expulsion targets all "who are illegally residing in Pakistan", not just Afghans so I added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The altblurb still says "begins" but it's easy to find coverage from years ago which clearly states that Pakistan was deporting Afghans then. What's happening now is a tightening of the screw rather than a beginning. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The nominator's comment is factually incorrect. Deportation of illegal aliens to home country can't be categorized as 'forced displacement'. It's a deportation drive just like the one conducted in 2016. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Appears similar to the Rwanda asylum plan and the Windrush scandals which I don't think we posted. Maybe that should change but it would appear that this is a frequent issue in disparate countries, so maybe not. Also not really comparable to forced expulsions. Gotitbro (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, definitely a massively important story. We can't just ignore ethnic cleansing. We're talking about several millions of people, that's not a "frequent issue". Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: AP calls it an "anti-migrant crackdown". The event has caused hundreds of thousands of people to relocate. This is a major movement of people and a major international event, and a humanitarian event of no small significance. These things make it a good ITN candidate. —Alalch E. 23:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * However, there's an WP:ITNQUALITY problem with respect to the lead section at this time.—Alalch E. 01:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead.  Schwede 66  14:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This has massive humanitarian and security implications. The quality of the article is adequate for ITN as it is well-sourced. The minor quibbles regarding exact terminology doesn't impact the overwhelming scale of what's happening and as of now the article has is adequately neutral and factual. --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per above. The   Kip  18:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable enough for an article. Leave the ITN alone. Fahads1982 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like spreading propaganda. The article title is misleading. The current drive is not only for Afghans. It's for all but the page targets only afghans.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Fung Ying Ki

 * Comment: Article needs restructuring with information in the intro moved to a section in the article body.  Spencer T• C 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Henri Lopes

 * Almost support. Refs are there, but they're not great (eg, one used four times that's flagged as permanently dead). A bit more work? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but ultimately oppose on quality. Article has sections where it seemingly deviates from wikivoice (eg "Perhaps his most acclaimed work is..."), does not even include changes as prime minister, political views, or legacy. The whole thing pans out more as an Insta bio than an actual in-depth article. Needs more work. Will not talk about refs as Moscow Mule has already discussed them. For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 03:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Mattingly

 * Support from my glance at the article, it looks ready to post. There might be a couple statements that might need to be individually sourced, but I really only glanced at the article, and I did not do an in-depth investigation of its sourcing. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready. Additional citations have been added, article looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is clearly ready. Suggest posting without delay. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Sam Bankman-Fried conviction

 * Support-Was just about to nominate this, it is significant since it involves a billionaire. Interstellarity (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I think we'd wait for sentencing, that's not until March, so this would appear to be the right time. No comment yet towards quality or appropriateness otherwise. M asem (t) 00:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for Alternative blurb II. I think this blurb is the most clear --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Case received a ton of media attention due to its relation to the crypto boom and bust, and article seems up to par quality-wise. The   Kip  01:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per above. --Pithon314 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 - high profile case.  starship .paint  (RUN) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 or alt2 per above. Enormous media and public attention (public interest), lots of rich and famous people involved. JM (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Not a globally recognized figure. The collapse of FTX was a more contained event than the Madoff scandal. Trial article does not have encyclopedic prose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 There is a relation between him and his role at busting late 2010s and early 2020s cryptocurrency hype which spread across the world, leading to 2023 economic downturn. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dog bites man. Fraud and corruption are pretty much run of the mill in crypto land. I can't remember the last time I got through a week without reading about some new crypto scam in the press. The only thing that makes this even remotely noteworthy are the number of zeros before the decimal point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well as you say, it's noteworthy because of the amount of money involved. It's also generated a lot of public interest i.e., widely reported. JM (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's an important escalation of regulatory oversight of crypto. I can only think of two other ongoing cases that are as important to the crypto landscape: US v. Binance and Custodia Bank v. Federal Reserve. As you'll see from this proposed amicus brief in Binance, "regulation-by-enforcement" really is the front line for crypto right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;I personally prefer the original blurb, but if nobody else wants it, I'll settle for alt2. A high-profile billionaire being convicted of major white collar crimes seems like a pretty major news story to me. Kurtis (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's quality is not that bad with this conviction making major headlines as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Davey & Kurtis. All three blurbs look good 3df (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - maybe we should put up the courtroom sketch PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not that notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Covered in largest news agencies AFP, plus Reuters, and AP, covered in the Middle East, covered in South America, covered in Australia ...  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden's fall on his bike was also covered by "largest news agencies" and not for that reason it was something notorious. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the bike fall will get its own article like George H. W. Bush broccoli comments. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Did we post FTX's bankruptcy? If that was deemed not notable for ITN, posting what is essentially the aftermath of it does not seem apt either. And while a factor in the crypto bust, it was neither a catalyst nor the end of it and if anything was to be posted as for this it should have been the NFT bust back then. Gotitbro (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We didn't, though that was largely was because it was a particularly active week on ITN and it got got closed for being older than the current item on ITN. — Knightof  theswords  14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news and has several significant aspects. The article is extensive but had a couple of citation needed so I have resolved them. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Ad Orientem. And the date of his sentencing is in 2024. Pavlor (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A really important story, and one which we are uniquely placed to explain to a lay audience. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This rivals Bernie Madoff. Even surpasses in some ways. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. AryKun (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt 2 Consensus supports posting. News is significant, articles are in good shape, and opposition of "not that notable" or "I see lots of crypto scam news" is not compelling. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, pulled) Now and Then (Beatles song)

 * Support: Only two unsourced parts (from a quick skim). I don’t think including “ English rock band” is necessary at all, because I mean, they’re the Beatles, and I’m not sure if the citation in the personnel section is the best way to do it. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Altblurb with less spoonfeeding suggested, then. Also sidesteps contentious MOS:THEBAND. Moscow Mule (talk)


 * Support Significant and notable. --Bedivere (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the fact the "last song" is being quoted here means this may not actually be their last song, if similar recordings for other songs exist. --M asem (t) 22:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, they never claimed it was their last song before for similar recordings. Besides, you can always suggest an alt blurb. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The official annoucement calls it the last song, w/o quote marks. And anyway, two lots thereof make the blurb look tacky: remove the second set, per alt2? Moscow Mule (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see more a focus on how this song came together than claiming a "last song", as that's why this is more interesting (given two of the band members are dead).
 * --M asem (t) 00:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something like  ... the AI-assisted "Now and Then"  might have been the hook we were looking for. But that wouldn't have protected it against the accusations of advertising. Because, of course, the World Series, the Rugby World Cup and motorsports are philanthropic, non-profit concerns. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable, especially coming from an inspiration musical group, article appears to be in good shape as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pretty big deal because this is a massive music group Lukt64 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of coverage. Quality issues appear to be resolved. This is the "last song" because only three songs were worked on by the surviving members of the group in the mid 90s reunion, and this is the last of the three. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support On the basis that is one of the most influential music groups in history Centuries123 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose After reading the other comments. I now agree that the Beetles shouldn't be given a special status Centuries123 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news and interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems to meet all 4 parts of WP:ITNPURPOSE. — Knightof  theswords  23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: A historic moment for the band. Rager7 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Interesting story with global RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Would be trivial for nearly anyone else, but with the sheer fame/influence of the Beatles and the fact it’s their first release in nearly 30 years, I’d say it’s notable enough. The   Kip  01:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit advertisey to post this imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose I understand that it's the beatles, but "old band releases last song" 53 years after the band stopped existing is not significant enough JM (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As of this comment it is 10 supports and 9 or 10 opposes counting post-posting !votes. No consensus to post JM (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose — Per JM. ITN is not an advertisement. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. Doesn't sound significant enough. I also don't buy those "last song" claims because they can simply be good PR advertising campaign. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 03:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull not significant enough. Fails the "worldwide front page news" test and it's too much like an advertisement. Meghan Trainor, Taylor Swift, now the Beatles on Wikipedia's front page? Come on, let's be less of an advertisement for white Western mainstream commercial interests. Levivich (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt anyone voted for this because of the whiteness of the Beatles, consciously or subconsciously. JM (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can listen to this single for free on YouTube. We just ran a picture for several days which was mostly an advert for Red Bull and that's something you have to pay for. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They get paid for YouTube views, you know. And yes, we advertise too much for Red Bull, and lots of other mainstream commercial interests. It's funny because we get all bent out of shape about UPE and COI but then we freely shill products on our main page, and we volunteer for it, lol. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone has heard more than enough complaints about that picture by now JM (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not a complaint as the suggested alternative also has sponsors on the cars, it’s just to say that the “advert” line of reasoning probably shouldn’t be considered. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Post-posting oppose per Levivich and OhanaUnited. This is practically an advertisement. Anyone, not just Beatles, can make their "last" songs and in few years, or even decades, they could make another song again. While Beatles is very prominent back in the 1960s, they do not have much worldwide spread as in for example Taylor Swift or Britney Spears, as they emerged at a time when it is very hard to spread music across the world because not everyone had radios/TVs. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is hardly gonna be reposted, but saying that the Beatles do not have worldwide spread and are less known than Britney is just laughable. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PP Oppose per most of the above. Insufficiently significant for ITN and frankly this has more than a whiff of fan promotion to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull for blatant advertising and a lack of sufficient noteworthiness.  Sounder Bruce  04:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull per above, probably better suited for DYK. Agree with elijahpepe on this one. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It can't go to DYK unless made a GA, - not a new or sufficiently expanded article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that this has been a substantial article since it was started in 2007. What's new here is that AI was able to complete the production and this chimes with other current news about AI.  As a historic breakthrough in music technology, it might be a good topic for TFA.  And note that there are two other singles lined up to be featured on the main page this month: "Smoking on My Ex Pack" and "To Be Loved".  If TFA can run so many singles and computer games, then why can't ITN run one too? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This might actually be an extremely rare situation where DYK was a reasonable suggestion! It's not quite a x5 expansion from before release (more like x3) but it's almost imaginable to make that happen. Still a terrible, irrelevant argument for this forum tho. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this is 100% a situation where the item is DYK. It is TRIVIA. Like good for people who like the Beatles, but what is the IMPACT here? DarkSide830 (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see impact being anywhere in ITN criteria. Does people winning sport competitions have any impact? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aaron Liu: I don't see impact being anywhere in ITN criteria. You're right that it's not there. In fact, in the ITN criteria for significance, all that is required is a consensus of the people presently !voting. The system leaves it up to everyone else to form their own definition of what significance entails, and from there it pushes people to find a common ground of agreement or disagreement for each item. The sporadicity of the process is what leads to our little quirks and funnies like "we posted this last year, why aren't we posting this now?", or "we made a mistake by posting this type of item before, don't post this again", or "this item is not of international encyclopedic lasting non-trivial significance".
 * Apologies if that sounded preachy. All of this is to say that I do understand what you're getting from. However, when it comes to assessing notability of events, ITN/C simply doesn't function like anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's certainly what gives the biggest headache for new participants, particularly those who expect it to function more like a ministerial process, similar to DYK's procedures. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled Stephen 04:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine an ITN admin as someone standing next to a sign board with a ladder. Ten people come up with a sign and say, "Post this." The admin says, "Any objections?", and hearing none, climbs up the ladder and posts it. Upon getting down from the ladder, the admin finds ten other people who say, "Take that down." The admin sighs, climbs back up the ladder, and takes it down. Thank you, ITN admins, for putting up with us. Levivich (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this was just a rather unusual incidental event due to chance, its just that that the people who would oppose happened to arrive after the people who would support. JM (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It happened while the rest of the world was asleep. This is where having a "minimum discussion time" proposal comes from. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It shouldnt matter where in the world it's nighttime, that shouldn't significantly change the number of people who vote support versus oppose. I still think it's just incidental, I don't see why for example Australia's votes would so signifcantly differ to America's or Britain's for general nominations like this. ITN would be far less dynamic with a minimal discussion time. JM (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Vigor and swiftness ITN would do best without. There is WP:NORUSH. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think it was posted way too quickly as well, only 3 hours after it was nominated, little time for a valuable consensus to develop. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling oppose Because of course, a baseball team winning the annual American baseball tournament is more important than the Beatles.Trepang2 (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * /CriesInBlueJaysTears Howard the Duck (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I know it's unlikely to be reposted, but it's a bit of a stretch to think referring to this at ITN is an advertisement. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Come on, it's the Beatles. Bedivere (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, this is in the news and the reason it's in the news is not for promotional purposes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I want to like this as a blurb but a couple of things. 1. The four of them didn't actually put the song together as "The Beatles" 2. Two there appears to be a fifth Beatle (AI). Unfinished Tolkien anyone? CoatCheck (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No artificial intelligence was used in the actual song, other than to extract Lennon's voice from the muddy old cassette from the 1970s. The four of them do appear in the record and the four of them did participate on it, at different stages: Lennon back in the 1970s, Harrison in the 1990s, and both McCartney and Starr in the 1990s and 2020s. Bedivere (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * McCartney and Starr also worked on it in the 1990s, in studio, with Harrison, and as The Beatles. The work was put aside because of the technical roadblock of not being able to at the time extract Lennon's vocals from the background noise and piano. How is this any different than The Rolling Stones recording and releasing material, never together, in mid-2020. No one claims it wasn't put together as the Rolling Stones because Brian Jones is dead! The use of the term AI seems over-used as well. This line of reason looks very persnickety to me. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Support – Lovely culmination of a long history of detailed encyclopedic writing on the Beatles, both in the expansive bibliography and on Wikipedia. The "last Beatles song" (properly in quotes imo, because the Beatles are no longer a thing) is an endstone to the field, something that has been a subject of interest for a very long time. I am supportive of posting cultural/artistic releases. It's a sad thing to me that any such feature would risk coming across as arbitrary advertisement (whenever it comes to a new release). I would like to post our editors' extensive writing on a subject like this on ITN, and this feels like one of the most appropriate subjects for it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The more I ruminate on this one, especially looking at Moscow Mule's and Andrew's comments on us constantly advertising sporting events and the sponsors thereof, I have to say I am becoming increasingly more in favour of posting a freely-available art product fifty years in the making... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot help if a major sports championship has been forced to be named by its sponsor; stating that name is not COI-type non-neutral naming, and we can't avoid that. Nor when we post things like the Grammies or Oscars that naming the winning films/songs/shows are considered ads for those. On the other hand, this single is a simply a commercial item and so far beyond being tied to The Beatles, has no known impact on the world, so this is far more like an ad for that song than anything else we post. M asem (t) 14:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support posting. It's Beatles, hey hey. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose because I don't think "last song" is a verifiable claim and I really don't think "support because it's the Beatles" is a valid argument for noteworthiness ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For me it's the most valid argument. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seriously. This is a classic case of trivia. Can anyone actually explain why this is is so significant beyond "it's the Beatles", which is not good ITN justification. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What other proofs of significance besides being a much-hyped and technically innovative product of the most successful pop artists of all time do you need? Trepang2 (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon. Yeah, the Beatles were quite popular. Emphasis on "where". We've rejected other noms for other artists almost out of hand before. Personally, news about Taylor Swift, The Weeknd, Drake, etc means more to the average person. That they sold a lot of record several decades ago is pretty much also trivia to most people. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If "where" is a question on location, Beatlemania lists 1964 – 1965 as "international success" and they've had a world tour. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant "were". DarkSide830 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes much more sense. Still, I don't think the fact that they were very popular is trivia, but I've never asked anyone else, though they all know the Beatles. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and keep pulled for the same reason we don't post sports retirements -- how can you prove that it'll be the last song? We would never give any other band this type of treatment. I don't normally favor pulling items, but the consensus has swung so far in the other direction that it has to be noted. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And let's try to be aware of how thoroughly we plunge our ankles into the ballpit that is systemic bias when we come up with rationales such as "it's the Beatles, that's why" to justify our support !votes. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is statistics that can't be argued with: the Beatles are the most successful act in pop history, which makes them notable, and the song is both technically innovative (which can be mentioned in the blurb) and critically acclaimed. I see no reason to bring in biases here. Trepang2 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I assume that when Eminem and Rihanna put out new singles that you would also then support those, since they have more certified units sold than the Beatles (I know about the claimed sales but one statistic is just as valid as the other) and they are still relatively active and recognizable as 21st century artists. But again, Masem's argument above (which aligns with my own) about this being an item of limited interest and even then only from a commercial standpoint shuns the relevance of statistics. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every new single of Eminem and Rihanna were recorded decades prior, use innovative technology, or is said to be their last. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly as @Aaron Liu says, it's the combination of the factors that makes this particular case noteworthy. That being said, I wouldn't mind Eminem or Rihanna being featured on ITN. Trepang2 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For an example of another song item which was posted, see "Like a Rolling Stone". Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That was posted because of the value of the auction item, not because of the song itself. Very different situation. M asem (t) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also if I'm reading right, that was posted on a 4-2 vote from 10 years ago. That really isn't indicative of anything. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this counters my argument, not to mention the fact that the dynamics of consensus-building at ITN, and indeed the makeup of its users, was far different 10 years ago. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, we can't be sure it is actually their "last song." But, OTOH, the Beatles are an incredibly successful musical act who have not released music in a significant period of time. This story is receiving major attention, and ITN generally has a dearth of pop culture stuff. There is value to posting it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The song has been receiving huge press coverage, the article is in fine shape, and... look, even if isn't their "last song" (which it should be, as the surviving members are in their 80s and have not even hinted at work on any other songs), it's the first new song in decades from the most famous and most influential band in the history of music. Sounds pretty notable to me. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 17 supporting, 13 opposing to this point. I'd say this one deserves another go. Bedivere (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * that's only 56.67% support by your own count; and since your comment there has been one !vote change from support to oppose, reducing it to 53.33% support. and this is not a vote anyway, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY JM (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is more likely to end up as no consensus given mixed reactions. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a retirement, a last song, all sorts of things can be undone. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be better to say that it's their first single since 1996, rather than their last song – which sounds sort of CRYSTAL-ish? 3df (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, the article is NOT written like an advertisement. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL unless it breaks worldwide music billboard records. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Junior Balaiah

 * Weak oppose: Unsourced filmography, which is apparently awful <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This wikibio is stubby, with only 251 words of prose. And the filmography is still unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Brain

 * Support Article looks sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 World Series

 * Support Any remaining article issues will almost certainly be quickly cleaned up. Congrats, Rangers! The   Kip  03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent work on keeping this updated in an orderly manner. Someday the Mariners will feature.  Sounder Bruce  03:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Didn’t even know it already happened, but the article looks good. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An unreferenced paragraph in Game 1. Stephen 10:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed, it's all covered by the Guardian live blogged source that was on the following paragraph. It got expanded and split into two. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The article is thorough and mostly good, but has a few unreferenced sections. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - thanks for the ref updates. Looks good now. And hopefully this now ends the debate over the pic of Kalle Rovanperä as well 😊 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture this time is not much better as it's another interview mugshot which is functionally the same as the previous one as the guy's not even in uniform and so there's no sign of the sport. The article has some much better action pics such as George Bush throwing out the first pitch or shots of other pitchers. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You see how terribly that image shows up in a thumbnail size, though, right? And Dubya is tangential to the 2023 WS while Seager was MVP. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture shows a crowded stadium and gives a better feel for the event as the throwing of the first pitch is a long-standing tradition. As it's a high-res pic, it can be cropped as shown. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to show an action pic. The main issue some users had with the previous picture was image quality, which is not a concern here. We typically show the series MVP, so I don't know why you are arguing for (to me) what seems to be a meaningless photo of the G1 first pitch. Natg 19 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s Andrew, he’s arguing because of his inherent calling to be disruptive to ITN/C.
 * The photo is fine, it shouldn’t be changed. The   Kip  17:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture we're currently using isn't at all accurate or relevant as it was taken in 2016 when he was a rookie playing for the Dodgers. That's 7 years ago and so is quite misleading in showing him as he is now.  And it doesn't show him playing so all I get out of it is that he then wore a similar check shirt to myself.  The first pitch photo was actually taken at the event that we're reporting and was a significant part of the show.  Andrew🐉(talk) 17:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s good! <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ady Barkan

 * Support. Was just going to nominate this myself. Looks good to go. Rest in peace. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Added New York Times web link. Page includes the significant extent of his activity and connections to influential public figures. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced. Gone too soon. RIP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Knight

 * Oppose. Many sections within the article is unsourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  00:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For RDs please focus on the quality of the article. It is in terrible shape right now. M asem (t) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a 100% clear textbook example of a WP:ITNCDONT rule 1 violation. Hopefully the !vote is ignored. JM2023 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the !vote isn't terribly helpful, but neither is jumping on them and drawing attention to it. ITNCDONT isn't "rules" and they can't be 'violated". Take it easy and try to assume good faith. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, has decent refs and could be RD worthy with a bit of cleanup; but defo not ready yet. For five more minutes... it's just a single vice 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've significantly improved the article by adding numerous references and some copy-edits. Article looks to be in good shape now. RIP Bob Knight, really influential in men's basketball here in Bloomington. Tails   Wx  16:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently sourced now. Marking "Ready".—Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Remnants of Theia found near Earth’s core

 * Oppose on quality article has 3 citation tags, and it has only one line referrring to this discovery in the lead, which is not even covered in the body of the article. Also the blurb is gramatically incorrect JM2023 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JM2023. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per JM2023, minimal updates to prose. Lean oppose on notability. The   Kip  23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move for SNOW per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Minimal updates in the article, not clear which recent discovery is referred to. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close per JM2023. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 AI Safety Summit

 * Wait Hosting a summit in and of itself doesn't seem like a big deal. I'd be curious to see if they announce recommendations or a plan or something like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 28 countries have already issued the 'Bletchley Declaration', agreeing to collaborate on AI Safety and outlining several recommendations. And for the first ever summit on this matter that is attracting such a lot of high-profile individuals, and is very much In The News, I think it warrants a blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Summits aren't important. If some law or declaration comes out of it, sure.
 * <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A declaration has come out of it PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Summits and declarations are hardly uncommon in today's day in age. What exactly makes this one so important? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Summits are not outcomes or results. Anyway, the AI genie is way past out of the bottle and into the wild. CoatCheck (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait It's definitely in the news but the article is rather thin at the moment. Better to wait on the conclusion(s). Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, lots of summits happen with important people but we don't post them all. Doubtful international significance QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above JM2023 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 152830 Dinkinesh

 * Weak oppose Even though I'm a huge space nerd, I'm going to have to oppose this due to notability. Neither article has been updated as well. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A blurb is ITNR once the article's been updated, for a spacecraft reaching its destination. Ongoing isn't merited for an event of "a few days".  If it's posted and still getting new images when it rolls off of T:ITN, we can maybe put it in ongoing then, but it'd be unusual. —Cryptic 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. What exactly is so "unique" about this particular fly-by? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I retract my "unique" statement. Not sure why I said that, but I believe this flyby is noteworthy enough for people to be aware of, as exploration of Solar System bodies (especially those that haven't been imaged before) doesn't happen often. Nrco0e (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. People love their hyperbolics here and it just gets on my nerves. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It might be best to wait until we have the closest-approach image though I gather that the image is not likely to be high-resolution.  That's when it's likely to be most "in the news" and we'll have some analysis of the shape and structure of Dinkinesh. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now we have a good image, it's quite interesting and getting mainstream coverage such as the NYT. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Do we plan to blurb the rest of the 7 fly-bys as well. If so better get this to ITNR as well otherwise I don't see what makes this unique from the others that will take place. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already WP:ITN/R: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". The subsequent targets in this tour are spread out over 10 years and the next one is in 2025.  And it's not as if ITN is overloaded as we haven't posted a new blurb for four days now. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support on its own merit. I'm not entirely impressed by the updates to these two articles and would like to see more details on Lucy's first flyby, but I'm impressed by the two articles as they are and believe this an appropriate feature. The news of it being a binary (another target was selected for potentially being a binary) is very exciting :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I would like to see more expansion on the topic, but I think the current prose is adequate and notability is present per WP:ITN/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azpineapple (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2034 FIFA World Cup

 * Oppose As this is over ten years in the future and the world is quite turbulent, this seems too contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. Many such events were cancelled or disrupted by the pandemic, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose factually incorrect. They were the only bid submitted, they have not been actually chosen yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly the fix is in, as Saudi Arabia announced its bid five minutes after the opening of bids(which had been moved up three years).  But anything can happen between now and the formal selection. Am I missing where the FIFA World Cup host selection is ITNR? Olympics hosts are, but I don't see this listed(I may be missing it). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose FIFA is one step away from selecting North Korea to host the World Cup in 2038. In any case, the selection is not notorious. Let's wait until 11 years from now, when they will be held. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed ITN/R from the nomination as this isn't ITN/R. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - FIFA's flagrant corruption deserves to be the subject of news attention, but this pantomime is not for ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Agha Hasan Askari

 * At the moment this is a little bit on the short side, tho given how prolific the subject was, I imagine there’s potential for expansion. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stub.  Schwede 66  14:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Only 186 words of prose? Any more to write about this fellow? Please expand this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)