Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 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.

(Posted) RD: Lea Ackermann

 * Posted Solid article!  Schwede 66  15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George W. Owings III

 * Posted Stephen 08:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tyler Christopher

 * Oppose Two cn tags, unreferenced filmography and awards section with orange tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The filmography and awards sections are still tagged for lacking sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lois Galgay Reckitt

 * support article is in great condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I see zero unsourced statements, and extensive prose. WP:BOLDly marking as ready. The   Kip  21:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alan J. W. Bell

 * Comments: The date of birth is referenced to FreeBMD but also to the BFI. The BFI page does say "not to be confused with the tv director", but from the filmography it's clearly the correct one. From the dates the series listed as "There's a Lot of it about" does seem to be the final series of Spike Milligan's Q but we should probably explain that rather than surprise linking to Q. The article is almost entirely about his work, there are lots of biographical details in the Guardian obituary which could be included. Secretlondon (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bio is too light on biographical detail.  Schwede 66  17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Calgary E. coli outbreak declared over

 * Oppose no one died, and its the end of the event, not the beginning. It would be like blurbing "the exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh is over" or something. JM2023 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose E. Coli outbreaks are quite common. The STEC strains seem quite nasty so I'm not convinced that this is good news; it's one more thing to worry about. As this outbreak is not getting much coverage, I feel we need something more to post this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a major event. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. The   Kip  20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New President of Nauru

 * Comment - Article needs a map PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a microstate with a population of around 10,000. The nominated article is primarily about events from 2022.  This latest development seems to be just local news which is not getting much attention in mainstream media.  Especially when compared to all the coverage of the US speaker elections which was dismissed here as local politics. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew...please... _-_Alsor (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say again that Andrew's continued participation in ITN is contrarian rather than productive. My assumption of good faith is used up. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not competent enough with it to go to ANI, but if anyone wants to mount a case against our disruptor in question I’ll be more than happy to support. The   Kip  18:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a PSA, he's already got a topic ban for deletion discussions for similar behaviour 2 years ago. Interesting. JM2023 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination is green, it's WP:ITN/R. Changes of the chief executive, when not already covered by a general election blurb, are automatically qualified for ITN blurbing, and the discussion is supposed to be about the quality of the article. You have been here far longer than I have, you should know this already. JM2023 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The election is what is ITN/R, and we posted it a year ago.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should reread WP:ITNELECTIONS. There are separate bullet points for the results of general elections and changes in the holder of the executive office. This clearly falls under the latter. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because this is ITN/R. To quote: "changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government"--and in Nauru, the president is the executive.  This was not posted before, because the 2022 Parliamentary election resulted in Russ Kun being elected president; Adeang's election as president is the outcome of a confidence vote, which resulted in the deposal of the previous president on October 25 and the election of David Adeang on October 30. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We would be posting the same article that we did a year ago. At the very least there should be a new target article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew Davidson. There is no substantial update to any article.  And this is a "country" of 10000 people that is not meaningfully independent from Australia.  We don't post elections from Scotland (population 5 million), California (population 39 million), or Uttar Pradesh (population 240 million).  And this isn't even a general election, just a government re-shuffle.  We shouldn't post this. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ITN/R which the nomination clearly links to. Changes of the chief executive of an independent state (which Nauru is) when not already covered by general election blurbs are ITN/R, and discussion is supposed to focus on quality. JM2023 (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The quality is also awful. David Adeang is an awful article; the section headings are "Background and early career", "Developments in 2007", "Developments in 2008", and "Developments in 2013".  The presidential vote is tacked on to last year's elections because it is fairly clearly not important enough for a stand-alone article.  And when the policy is wrong, I feel no obligation to claim to agree with it.  This should not be posted. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nauru is a sovereign UN member state. You say it is not meaningfully independent from Australia, and there is definitely a close relationship, but one of the characteristics of sovereignty is the ability to manage one's relations with foreign countries on one's own terms and this criterion is amply met. For example, Nauru maintains formal diplomatic ties with the ROC and not the PRC (one of very few countries to do so), whereas Australia does the reverse. That's not exactly something that California would do. Anyway, would you object to posting a similar update about Monaco, San Marino, or Liechtenstein? Andorra? Where do you draw the line in terms of population? I think this is a slippery slope. Even the population of Iceland is only 0.16% that of Uttar Pradesh, but I hardly think it is insignificant on the global stage, so this numerical comparison seems to be a poor metric. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Using Uttar Pradesh as a cutoff would mean we would only blurb elections and changes of government for Indonesia, the United States, China, and India. JM2023 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support NorthernFalcon's comment above is in line with the accepted practice. FWIW, the president is both head of state and head of government in Nauru, and Nauru is a UN member state despite its close relationship with Australia, thus appearing on List of current heads of state and government. There is no rule about ignoring ITN/R for small countries, and given that we have already posted Nauru government updates in the past I see no reason to stop now. There is only a paragraph about this event in the article, which is probably the most valid objection brought up so far, but I think it's minimally sufficient. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of quality, the main thing I consider to be lacking are the political reasons for the vote of no confidence and election of a new president. Instead of just stating that the votes happened as bare facts, we should provide context, if any is publicly available. The best source I've been able to find is this, but even that just leaves the reasoning at "domestic issues". Can anyone find something more specific? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on quality as Adeang's article is missing considerable citations. The   Kip  20:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle The president of Nauru administers the executive so this is ITN/R. We should not discriminate between states based on size, no matter if they are as small as Monaco or as large as the United States. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on quality - While this is ITN/R (as the president of Nauru is the administrator of the country's executive), the quality of the new president's article is unfortunately a non-starter for me. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that this nomination is now stale as it's older than the oldest item currently on ITN. Can it be closed at this point? BangJan1999 13:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead of the target article needs updating as the new president is not mentioned, I.e. this isn’t quite ready.  Schwede 66  16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Howard

 * Oppose, the majority of this article is unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RIP Hondo, but the article is in dreadful shape ref-wise. The   Kip  21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still working on it, this one is taking some time. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe everything is now sourced. Please re-review. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu: A few of the stats in the lead are not in the body (or need citation in lead). —Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I rewrote that part of the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. —Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems ok to me. Ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Laiq Zada Laiq

 * Weak Oppose. The article is sourced, but it could be expanded more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support -- Well sourced and I don't mind the lack of detailed prose. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With only 233 words of prose, this wikibio is somewhat stubby. Anything else to write about? Perhaps description of his "more than 500 radio plays, 12 TV plays, 120 stories, and 36 books"? One would expect a (referenced) selected bibliography of his more famous/popular plays/books to be included in the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub at only 1398B of readable prose.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a stub.  Schwede 66  15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Robert Brustein

 * Comment: Several areas need more citations.  Spencer T• C 02:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ado Ibrahim

 * Comment: Article could use a little more information about his role as ruler, in addition to his "friction with state government".  Spencer T• C 02:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Kerala bombing

 * Strong Oppose & Speedy close - Article is currently going through AfD (Articles for deletion/2023 Kerala bombing.) estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Andhra Pradesh train collision

 * Oppose It seems train crashes in India are quite common. This is like the third or fourth this year? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it is tragic, I have to oppose this as these kinds of accidents are quite common in India. Comparing it to the 2023 Odisha train collision, which was posted here, that accident killed 296 people. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Tragic, but unfortunately not entirely out of the ordinary for India nowadays. The   Kip  16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose now that others are saying what I was thinking. JM2023 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - 14 people meets the threshold for posting, in my opinion. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no death "threshold". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is quite thin. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There have been a few other ones of similar scale this year and we have had consensus not to post. Schwinnspeed (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - good faith nom, but it seems tragedies like these are relatively common occurrence. The death count here is relatively low, and I don't see any indications that this could have lasting long-term significance. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 World Rally Championship

 * Support. Well detailed, structured and sourced. I would like to see the champions more prominently pronounced in the opening sentences, but this will be easier to write in past tense at completion of the season. However, the newsworthiness of the proposed blurb will have passed by this point. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as it's listed in ITN/R and it's a good article. JM2023 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think "In motor sport" would be a better intro than "In rallying", more accessible, but otherwise good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see a sourced update. I believe I see an update of the win in the lead, but it's unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's referenced in the closing rounds section. Stephen 23:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a lot, but I'll strike my oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Image above comes from a CC-licensed YouTube video which is basically Rovanperä on an interview stream. Is there anyway we can scan that for more flattering/less "weird" shot of him? --M asem (t) 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think he looks fine, but I haven't seen any other images of him. JM2023 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying you have a long CC video half filled with him speaking to the camera. I scanned it quickly and didn't see anything super great but this image at size looks awkward. M asem (t) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for the blurb, with perhaphs omitting co-driver Jonne Halttunen at this point (classified as a Start article). 2002:5632:44C4:0:0:0:5632:44C4 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-bolded articles in the blurb don't have to conform to thr same quality standards as the main bolded article, so there's no issue with including Jonne Halttunen, and since they were seemingly an intergral part of the winning team, I think we definitely should retain them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm kind of surprise there's no MOS entry for portraits or pictures of people, because I find that the image is a bit unflattering and not what I would use. We tend to give other imaged figures on ITN/C very good treatment in terms of posting suitable portrait photographs. We ought to do the same here. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  16:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the image because it's a poor quality screenshot of a video and not very flattering to the subject. Edge3 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep image - The current image is not the most flattering, but it isn't the worst here on the pedia or even on ITN. We have a policy on image copyright that is why we're forced to use the image, the image that might I add is in both articles and thus will still be seen by a lot of viewers.
 * Side note; I'm not sure why on the mainpage, the cart if often put in front of the horse, where people will complain about how terrible it is for the lead image to be "promotional" because someone athlete was wearing a Nike hat or a jacket with a company's name on it, or get mad at a DYK or TFA for supposedly being inappropriate (such as the Lisa Novak TFA, because apparently the son of her lover, whose not even related to her or even mentioned in her article, might get bullied if it's on Wikipedia for one day?). Whenever I see that, my response is "that's how the article is, and your complaints should really be directed towards said article as well." — Knightof  theswords  00:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion - on Andrew's proposed image change. — Knightof  theswords  00:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the discussion for this image is now at WP:ERRORS JM2023 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Better image The current mugshot image is inappropriate as it doesn't show the actual sport. As this is a motorsport, it would be best to show a picture of the winning car.  The image (right) is from one of the 2023 events, seems a reasonable action picture and helps explain the nature of rallying. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Andrew image per Andrew Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a debate for WP:ERRORS? Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve put this in there now. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that this image is much better. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Kostenko mine disaster

 * Comment I don't like either of the blurbs, way too wordy, the day of mourning and end of investment into the company are not important enough to be in the blurb. And do we really need a photo of the country's president for a blurb about a mine fire? No. A simple A fire at a mine causes 33 deaths, 20 injuries, and 13 missing in Qarağandy Region, Kazakhstan would suffice. JM2023 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "termination of investment" means that the government is nationilising the business. I think a summary can be more compact, sticking to the headline. JM2023's blurb is good. All I did was try to fix it up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb II sufficient article and sufficient significance JM2023 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The accident section needs some expansion, currently it's just two-sentence long despite being central to the article. Brandmeistertalk  12:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now, sufficiently expanded. Brandmeistertalk  18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which blurb? JM2023 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb II as less verbose. While the aftermath is noteworthy, it could be left for the article. Brandmeistertalk  18:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We do not use ITNPURPOSE to judge whether to post or not, we use ITNCRIT. Not saying this shouldn't be posted, but using ITNPURPOSE should not be used to justify inclusion. M asem (t) 14:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCRIT is essentially so vague as to mean virtually nothing, henceforth why everyone and their mom here on ITN has their own independent blurb criteria. I don't see what's wrong with forming one based around the actual stated goals and mission that we purport to follow. — Knightof  theswords  15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ALT2 as the article’s been sufficiently expanded. First two blurbs are too wordy/full of unnecessary info. The   Kip  18:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb II It's more to the point and focuses on the actual disaster. Article looks fine. ❤History  Theorist❤  19:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been almost 24 hours and there's no opposition, can an admin post it? JM2023 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The  Kip  03:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We are in no rush to post things (particularly as this is actually older by at least a day), but I have marked it ready as I do not see any glaring issues on the article now. --M asem (t) 04:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 North Caucasian anti-Jewish unrest

 * Oppose Part of the ongoing. Otherwise, we'd also want to post the massive arrests from NYC's Union Station yesterday, etc M asem (t) 04:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me how and where it is covered in the ongoing article? Not a single mention as far as i can tell. And probably not due to be mentioned either. So, how is it part of the ongoing article? 85.16.40.89 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a reaction to that event. There's a bunch of protests supporting both sides and reactions to those protests all over the world, this isn't anything special. AryKun (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the most-read story on the Guardian right now; not that this implies it rises to the level of a blurb (maybe if there were casualties), just that it may be seen to be slightly more significant than the usual everyday antisemitic rallies. JM2023 (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was special. And obviously they are connected. Just that it isn't covered by the ongoing article and one would not find any information about it in the article. If this doesn't rise to inclusion on its own notability is one thing and alright. To say it shouldn't be included because it is connected to an event in 'ongoing' is not, in my opinion. Especially if the event in question is barely, if at all, due in the linked article. 85.16.40.89 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As the template shows, we have literally hundreds of articles related to the war now. The single article we link to from ITN can't possible cover all of those aspects, and this event on its own is not really notable enough to blurb. AryKun (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about hundreds of articles though. We are talking about this one article. And more specifically the rationale for the vote. Had Masem said 'not notable enough', little to nothing to argue about. But they didn't 85.16.40.89 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The specific protests that happened in North Caucasus (that is, citizens there on a witch hunt for jewish people due to the war) is definitely notable on its own, but its also one of dozens of citizen protests, that have happened within the last two weeks. As the conflict articles links to all these protests, we don't necessarily to link to a specific one. M asem  (t) 12:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; I disagree with Masem that this is part of the ongoing war. While the spark was the current war, it goes deeper than this; it is motivated by antisemitism, not opposition to the current war.
 * The event has also received very widespread coverage, and is more than significant enough to warrant inclusion on the main page. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. There have been many similar protests in response to the ongoing war which are properly classified as anti-semitic (see Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war), so there's no need to single this one out. It's generally covered by the ongoing item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Part of an overall global anti-semitic trend, which is directly linked to the ongoing conflict. There's not really any basis to post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem - it is one specific large protest/riot in a global wave of such protests, not notable enough to be blurbed Unknown-Tree (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrifying, regrettable and notorious, but related to an event that is posted on ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody died and the republic and federal authorities are condemning this, rather than stirring it further. If Putin was calling for or explicitly aiding pogroms, that would be postable. There is widespread anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment around the world but none of it from what I have seen has been remotely as dangerous as what is actually going on in the war, so the war is the headline, not this. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Horrifying, but with (thankfully) no deaths and no large-scale damage, as well as no state support, this doesn’t rise to the level of a blurb. The   Kip  19:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adam Johnson

 * I've just thrown in a few {cn} tags. If he was an All-Star in USHL, this should be mentioned in the prose, too. --PFHLai (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Horribly tragic and freak accident. Article appear to be in decent shape and reasonably well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Article looks fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Matthew Perry

 * May I please request people to focus on the quality issues rather than getting into a flame war about you know what just this once? BangJan1999 00:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is a loooong way away from even an RD posting. Unsourced filmography. M asem (t) 00:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: His page is on par with many 'recent deaths' that have been approved previously. His fame will certainly drive many people to this page and many will be fixing it up to finalize his career. The current state is already good enough and will only likely get better. There is no reasonable reason to oppose posting this, especially given that he's a very famous person. I never watched Friends but I can attest to its influence and his part in it. This is a no-brainer. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we have not ever posted a bio in this bad shape with exception of those that are pulled. M asem (t) 01:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been thousands posted. There is absolutely zero way for you to back up that statement. It is incredibly unequivocal despite the sheer magnitude of examples that you are basing it on. As such, I think it's an empty statement based on a haphazard generalization. I disagree, but our anecdotes shouldn't determine if it gets posted. Instead we should base it on its own merits per agreed upon standards. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add more REFs to the "Acting credits" section. -- PFHLai (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . RD candidates need to meet the minimum standard of quality explained in WP:ITNQUALITY before posting, in part because recently-deceased people still fall under WP:BLP and in part because it is going up on the Main Page. Curbon7 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait needs to be of a higher standard per above. Given the ridiculously high volume of edits, it will be there soon if it isn't already. And please no one start asking "should we blurb this?" or say "support blurb" because there is no way this 90s American sitcom star is exceptional enough. JM2023 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Say what you want about Matthew Perry's death, but Friends is not a '90s American sitcom. It's been syndicated around the world enough times over the decades to go down in history as the Muhammad Ali of its kind. Boston Common, now that's a mere blast from NBC past. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh Inedible... Friends is world culture at this point, absolutely. I'm heartbroken to heat these news. A blurb would not be a bad thing for Batman Perry. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough yet to the story for a blurb, though there's a robbery-homicide investigation in the citation that the update doesn't relay. Also condolences from the Prime Minister of Canada. The latter don't impress me much, but kind words from certain levels of government have swayed others here, historically. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To me it would merit a blurb even if the PM of Canada didn't say a word (but they were acquaintances privatly so it's nice he did), it stands on its own. It's sudden and unexpected. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They went to school together and Perry's mother was Trudeau's father's press secretary. It's not so much condolences from a head of government as it is condolences from an aquaintance. Trudeau also personally begged Taylor Swift to come to Canada when she left it out of her world tour but we didn't blurb that. JM2023 (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift gets enough promotion here in the Featured Articles and Did You Know? And if it was a dead politician getting the nod from a former classmate, you know others would weigh it differently. Anyway, as I said, it's the potential robbery-homicide that's got me leaning now. Sudden death only goes so far, narratively, if it just leads to the usual mainstream North American arrangements. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And if it was a dead politician getting the nod from a former classmate, you know others would weigh it differently could you explain this line? I don't understand it. JM2023 (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems tributes are enough for international politicians to get blurbs (or blurb votes). A few other kinds of celebrities, too, but definitely global politicians. Anyway, it's not important to us, just others. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Death blurbs are not honours bestowed upon the beloved dead, they're supposed to be exceptional. Do people really think a 90s American sitcom actor's death needs a blurb? Tragic for loved ones, not exeptional for the world. JM2023 (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is called In the news section.
 * This story will be in the news for days, if not weeks. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me. JM2023 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is more than one criterion for a death blurb. This would come under the "death is the main story" criterion rather than "major figures" which I think is what you are referring to. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really see this as a major story either, so I didn't even mention it. Unexpected but not world-changing. JM2023 (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a front page story.
 * World changing isn't requirement for a blurb, it should be just in world news. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We've long determined that for deaths, simply being reported worldwide is not sufficient for a blurb. There has to be something far more, either the untimely nature of the death or that the person was a significant person in the world. Neither apply here. M asem (t) 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is untimely death.
 * Worlwide known multimillion are dies at such young age.
 * Of course it is untimely. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 54 is not "such a young age". JM2023 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but death for a US-American white male of that age is untimely. (I'm 53, so a bit biased here, perhaps ;-) ) Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the reason of death here? Gotitbro (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If its an RD, we don't need the reason of death, just confirmation of death. M asem (t) 03:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the article, "an apparent drowning in a hot tub at his Los Angeles home". 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to have invented the "apparent drowning" part. I removed it. It was details like these that got Whitney Houston reposted back when they mattered. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Apparent drowning" was reported in TMZ. JM2023 (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb The death seems to be the story here as it was untimely. An autopsy is likely but it's not clear how long this will take.  Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He had not had any major acting role for several years and basically recovering from his drug addiction period. Nowhere close to untimely, compared to Kobe Bryant's death. M asem (t) 12:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Kobe Bryant had been retired for almost four years when he died. Yes, Kobe had been working on other projects, but so was Matthew Perry with his best-selling memoir last year. I do think Kobe Bryant was a bigger figure in relation to his peers. Zagal e jo (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But he had roles on TV and was on Friends reunion special, which was a major event. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had to look up Kobe Bryant to understand who he was. Turns out he was a former basketball player who died in a helicopter crash.  Not seeing the connection. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the connection is that both are said by editors here to be "unexpected/untimely celebrity deaths". JM2023 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Bryant's death was posted as a blurb: "American former basketball player Kobe Bryant and four others die in a helicopter crash near Calabasas, California."  Was this a problem?  Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Long before my time, but I wouldn't have supported it on the basis of "unexpected celebrity death", I only could have possibly supported it on the basis of "helicopter crash kills five people" but it probably wouldn't have even been proposed without the unexpected celebrity death. I would consider myself one of the harshest hardliners here in terms of death blurbs and I've repeatedly stated I wouldn't even blurb Jimmy Carter. JM2023 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a difference between Bryant (one of the most famous basketball players of all time) and Perry (famous actor, but nowhere near the top of his field). Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb The actor is primarily known for his role in one TV series. Apart from that he is just another actor who had a series of roles here and there. The circumstances surrounding his death doesn't make him any more worthy of a blurb. Otherwise we'd need to blurb Susan Ross, given that she died after licking some toxic envelopes. Chrisclear (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not another actor from series, this is THE most popular sitcom in the world.
 * First, we can not say "apart from it" because it's the most important part that defines his notability.
 * Second, he had other notable work and isn't one hit wonder.
 * He had three starring roles in TV series and several leading roles in films, including hit The Whole Nine Yards (and its sequel).
 * "The circumstances surrounding his death doesn't make him any more worthy of a blurb" - on the contrary, they precisely make him worthy of a blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb. Death of a worldwide known star in such age is a story. And first our criterion is death is the story. Which is the case here, it will be investigated for some time. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fame and popularity (nor lack of them) are used to decide about posting. And no, there's no major investigation here, they've ruled out foul play nor drug overdose. M asem (t) 12:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose anything until the article is in a decent shape. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Support RD. Maybe with an image instead of a blurb. I don't think he's right for a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb. I've dealt with the citation needed tags and I couldn't see anything else which was obviously unsourced. Suonii180 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb. Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography and awards still unsourced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - I think we need to read the room here with all that is going on in the world. His level of impact as an actor is not on the level we would call "a superstar" either.--82.153.161.212 (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - A very sad event indeed, and Friends is indeed known worldwide (as are many other TV shows), but there is no way he rises to the level of a blurbable death. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK for RD now (good work with the refs since the news broke). No blurb, per others. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - good quality article. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop proposing death blurbs before an article has met quality standards for RD? You do realise that suggesting blurbs in this manner will more often than not result in the article never reaching the quality standards it requires even for RD? BangJan1999 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the article ready yet for RD? BangJan1999 16:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks much improved from yesterday. What's with the orange "expand section" tag in the awards? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD - quality concerns have been addressed. Strong oppose blurb - the idea of a certain editor (or two) that any once even-slightly-notable figure is worthy of a blurb, especially before the article quality is improved, has become outright disruptive at this point. Friends was popular, but he’s not even close to the point of a blurb. The   Kip  16:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Concerning the "death as the main story" criterion that some users are bringing up: There is no criterion for a death blurb. There are some guidelines through which significance can be assessed, but there's no requirement to post as a blurb even if it feasibly meets that guideline. It's intended to be open-ended so that we don't post blurbs that might be eligible on paper but don't carry the added relative significance that we tend to seek for death blurbs. Plausibly, this is such an example, as it carries the same weight whether it's an RD or a blurb, thus it should be an RD. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  16:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically the death is the story for every RD nom. After all, they wouldn't be nom'd if they hadn't died and it hadn't become a news story. The "death as the main story" idea is that it should be more than the death/obit that people are talking about. It should have a significant impact in some way, and Perry's death won't likely have any significant impacts beyond more people streaming Friends for the next week or two, I imagine. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb: make sure that the article is well sourced and ready, then post for RD. Blurb is way too much; Perry was a good actor, but not well known enough for an international news blurb (if it were American news only, then yes, but there isn’t). You could put a lot of different actors in a blurb post; however, they not only need to be an actor who is extremely popular overall in their field (which Perry, despite being popular in the sitcom field, isn’t necessarily the hugest actor in the film industry in general), but has been an a pioneer in that industry. Kybrion (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I usually oppose blurbing RDs, but in this case it has made a lot of significant news coverage. Still leaning oppose, but I think there's a debate to be had. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose blurb: While Friends was indeed an international phenomenon, and Perry was a member of its ensemble cast, I don't believe he himself was at the level of celebrity that merits a blurb. Sad that he died an untimely death, regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Rugby World Cup final

 * Do we need to mention "rugby union" specifically as well? From what I gather there are three versions of the game internationally. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Important enough but the amount of text on the match isn't good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:E809:A00:B130:6F9B:51C4:1C92 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The match details section needs to be expanded and the Notes are mostly unsourced. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tons of CN tags and very little prose in the match summary. The   Kip  19:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready The match section is now solid and fully referenced. The notes section has been referenced. I see no remaining issues that would stop this from being posted. There is one style tag, but yellow tags do not disqualify an article (orange and red-level tags would disqualify as per our guidelines).  and, do you want to have another look to confirm that your issues have been addressed?   Schwede  66  13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The details section looks reasonable and the Notes have been sourced, I'm OK with it now. Bcp67 (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Steve Riley

 * Oppose Discography is unsourced. The   Kip  19:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to the unsourced discography, there's an orange tag, needing additional citations. Tails   Wx  02:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography has remained unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled RD) RD/Blurb: Li Keqiang

 * Support if sourcing issues are fixed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support pretty surprising. article is better than a usual RD nomination considering he was the PRC's head of government. JM2023 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb When I said Support the first time it was not nominated for a blurb, only RD. I do not support blurbing this death, it is not notable enough. He was not the active head of government. JM2023 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Damn. Didn't think Xi would be that bold. Anyway, the article is sufficient in terms of covering his life, and is also verifiable.  Bremps  ...  02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We needn't promote baseless conspiracy theories here. Gotitbro (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad; I'll stop.  Bremps  ...  16:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks pretty good, two missing refs should be filled quickly. Davey2116 (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per below. Very influential political figure in the world's most populous country. I would support blurbing a similarly influential U.S. vice president, so this seems appropriate. Davey2116 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs some ref improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering he was prime minister of such large and important country as China recently, and has been for ten years, and he died suddenly, can we talk about a blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely an important figure in recent Chinese history but I would be wary of opening ITN floodgates by blurbing essentially the second-(third?) in-command in the political hierarchy as we have only posted the deaths of the highest effective power holders in a country.
 * Unless the factors of the death itself turn out to be a matter of discussion or interest (it appears to be sudden and unexpected) I think we should stay put. Gotitbro (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb His death is significant enough to get the Chinese censors suppressing and downplaying the news – see Chinese Mourn the Death of a Premier. This Wikipedia is then a place that they might look to for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We need not approach this from a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perspective though. And while reader interest can be factored in it should not be the sole criteria driving a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd be posting this because he was "Definitely an important figure in recent Chinese history". His legacy includes the Li Keqiang index. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Nothing in the article suggests that he had a major impact (beyond being a leading ruler of China), in comparison to people like Thatcher or Mandela. Sudden heart attack of an older person is not a surprising death. Oppose RD on quality issues only - a good handful of CNs that need fixing. --M asem (t) 12:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Andrew. Oppose on quality with the CN tags, though there's only 2 of them so I think we'll get this settled pretty quickly .  S5A-0043 Talk 13:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I WP:BOLDLY removed the "unexpected" in main blurb because I don't think that's exactly a neutral language we'll probably want to use. S5A-0043 Talk 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb per andrew and also since he played a major force in the politics of China, one of the most powerful countries on earth, for the past decade. Support RD - there are only two CN tags and per WP:ITNQUALITY, one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. — Knightof  theswords  13:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb. Fairly recently one of the most powerful people on the planet who died relatively young. Also something of a dissident even within his party judging from the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Sudden death, fairly young, and he was an important figure in Chinese politics until his retirement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is "was an important figure in Chinese politics" discussed in the article? I would expect a significant Impact or Legacy section to describe how he altered or affected Chinese politics; my read of the article doesn't suggest this was the case. M asem (t) 17:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Notable Chinese Politician, died fairly young. TheInevitables (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems significant, was a significant political figure in China. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as he was a former and a premier of the PRC. Nothing unusual about the death either. I would support a blurb for both Hu and Xi when the time comes. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But he was prime minister just this March, it's not like he is a figure of past, like Gorbachov or Jiang Zemin, whom we blurbed. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb notable politician in China, with a sudden death. RIP Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This is getting utterly ridiculous. He was not the national leader, so he doesn't merit a blurb. Nothing he did in life warrants comparison with people like Berlusconi, Rawlings, Jiang, Vajpayee etc. who actual ruled their country in person for many years. And the suggestion that his death at the age of 68 is unusual or suspicious is entirely unfounded. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder that china is home to 1/7 of the worlds population... Lukt64 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: He was an important figure in Chinese politics and so it should be noted. Rager7 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Andrew. He was clearly an important figure in modern Chinese history with huge legacy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. If his position in the government wasn't significant enough that we post it when its officeholder is replaced, then posting his death merely because he previously held the position doesn't even merit discussion. —Cryptic 19:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 20:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: unlike other former second-in-commands, Li is very current; he only went down from his position seven months ago. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per . The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb; we wouldn't post if a former French PM died, role is similar This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What about a former French PM a few months after leaving office? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted RD – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Many outside observers have remarked that Li was effectively sidelined by Xi Jinping's consolidation of power,[42] with some calling him the "weakest premier" since the CCP took power in 1949. I'm sure he was important in that he was head of government, but I don't see anything so special or transformational that we should blurb this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb If he died in office, the event would be more important than a gracefully aged Thatcher or Mandela dying. It's only been a few months since he stepped down, so he's very much in the public eye and I'd argue that the event of him dying is about as important as Thatcher/Mandela's deaths. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 21:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Amakuru. Nothing in the article or the coverage of his death suggests he is significant enough to blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb -- he had no influential power at the time of his death. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Immediate PULL article is not ready: many lines and paras have no sources. Premature posting. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * *Oppose i mean who knows him? 3000MAX (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * About 1 400 000 000 people I guess? Trepang2 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:ITNCDONT at the top of the page to see that asking questions like "who" are against guidelines. Also, as the prime minister of the PRC, he governed over 1,400,000,000 people, so someone knew him. JM2023 (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, though some additional sourcing is needed in the article. Decade-long second in command of China who was central to formulating its economic policy even if he was sidelined in other aspects of state policy. He only recently stepped down from the post and the death was unexpected (Chinese state media did not have an obit prepared). With the trend of power consolidation he might also be remembered as the last premier with any significant real power for the foreseeable future. Also, while speculative, the deaths of past major Chinese leaders have traditionally been potential focusing lenses for reformer grievances (e.g. 1976 Tiananmen Incident after the death of Premier Zhou Enlai, and the the 1989 Tiananmen protests after the death of Hu Yaobang. The story is already more than just a standard death story, as news sources are analyzing the potential impact it has in Xi Jiping. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled from RD Quality is clearly not sufficient; significant number of CN tags including a whole paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Jiust to be counted. While you can devised that from my previous comments, it wasn't stated explicitly. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose blurb - he was a fairly weak second-in-command to Xi, which doesn't really speak to rising to ITNR's notability standards. Oppose RD due to quality issues - I count 11 CN tags. The   Kip  22:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also a lot of ideological representation and his actions were impactful enough for an entire page on the New York Times. Agree that article needs work. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support blurb - Seems to be having a significant impact in Chinese politics. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb&mdash;As premier of China, Li was the second-most powerful member of the Chinese government. For me to be in favor of blurbing the second-in-command of a country, there needs to be something exceptional about either their death or their political influence. I would support blurbs for Dick Cheney and Al Gore, for instance, because they both wielded far more political or sociocultural influence than most other US vice presidents. Li died of a heart attack at 68, which might be a bit young in this day and age, but it's also not particularly noteworthy; he wasn't assassinated, nor did he die in a plane crash. I'm ultimately not convinced that his significance within Chinese politics reaches such heights as to warrant a blurb. Kurtis (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb — Li was the head of Chinese government officially, absolutely a notable statesman. STSC (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even officially Xi ranked higher as General Secretary. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RD: Richard Moll

 * Oppose due to the amount of unsourced content. Suonii180 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Absurd lack of sources PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Almost the entire career and filmography sections are unsourced. The   Kip  19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Indian espionage case in Qatar

 * The title implies they were spying for India, rather than Indian nationals spying for Israel. It also lacks information. Secretlondon (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - cn tags in the article and I'm not sure the significance of this merits posting ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All CN tags have been resolved. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I still think I oppose this on notability ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural Oppose on account of the issue with the article title that may cause confusion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a good reason to oppose; ITN says nothing regarding article titles and besides, the link is piped anyway. — Knightof  theswords  04:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb, although entirely factual, might have a similar issue as the title. If you were to just read the blurb and not click the article, you would get the impression that they were spying on behalf of India, but they were (allegedly) working for Israel. That said, if the Wikipedia article is to be trusted, the Qatari government hasn't even officially linked them to Israel, only "media reports" have, so I'm not sure whether we even should mention Israel in the blurb. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - If this has a widespread impact on relations between Israel, Qatar, and India, as well as the ongoing war, then I'd consider supporting. But that seems dubious 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:4CA7:190C:4222:72FE (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment When was the time we posted a conviction carrying death, before the execution, or both? Gotitbro (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - If this has a widespread impact on relations between Israel, Qatar, and India, as well as the ongoing war, then I'd consider supporting. But that seems dubious 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:ADD5:5AEA:BC72:6032 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Syed Abul Hossain

 * Comment whole section unreferenced, i put a template, everyone feel free to cite it. JM2023 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support citations no longer needed JM2023 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I've inserted references and removed the tag, as stated above. Article looks in good shape to be posted. Tails   Wx  01:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article seems pretty heavily weighted toward the Padma Bridge scandal; is there anything else that can be added about his business or political career?  Spencer T• C 15:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zdeněk Mácal

 * Update: while I found no specific ref for his London debut, there's now an English obit in The Telegraph, only I have no access. Help? Please check the article, it's about time, and I'm still on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph obituary indeed had that information. Now fully cited. Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 15:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helena Carr

 * Support Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bertie Bowman

 * Support article is well-referenced; though it wouldn't hurt to expand it. Tails   Wx  01:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Lewiston shootings

 * Wait, inclined to support when the article is further expanded. Death toll is double digits, there are three shooting locations, and the gunman is still at large. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support upon expansion. I rarely support US mass shootings as they are about as common as rain. But this one looks really bad, even by American standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, large-scale active shooter incidents like this are not that commonplace. The most recent mass shooting in public with over five fatalities was back in January in Los Angeles, and there was a blurb about that I believe 2023 Monterey Bay shooting. Rocketman771 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I am supporting this. Mass shootings are extremely common in the US. But incidents with double digit fatalities are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Horrifying incident, but we still know very little and the article needs expansion. Leaning support due to scale. The   Kip  02:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We have 22 dead and up to 60 people wounded, this easily is in the top 10 worst shootings ever in the United States since 1949. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there were, but of our two original sources, one has retracted the claim about 22 dead, and the other simply reports that a local councillor said it could be as high as. Not only does this not crack the top 10, it's not even in the top 5 in the last decade! Nfitz (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't post bigger massacres in many other countries. I don't think we even nominated September 2023 Mali attacks after 63 were killed. Or the Karma massacre where somewhere between 60 and 156 people were killed. If the death-toll rises into the triple digits then perhaps reconsider. But these kind of things seem all too frequent - I don't think it's even the biggest mass killing in that country in the last decade - which is hard to comprehend. No prejudice against an ongoing about the lack of gun control there. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one you mentioned was conducted by Islamist militants, the second was by the Burkina Faso Armed Forces. Maine isn't a war zone, here we have one person who killed more people than the state of Maine sees in a year in regard to homicides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Granted, it's an event of very poor taste. But the point of Nfitz still stands. Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what point is that? Are we going to have a "deaths" quota that must be met for it to be included here? Not even the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (worst shooting ever in the USA) was in the triple digits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on whether or not we should add this to ITN as I'm too close to this situation to be objective (see username). But to me, ITN on English Wikipedia is always going to be inherently biased towards events such as this in English-speaking countries over non-English-speaking countries, because the news we rely on to source ITN is predominantly English-speaking and our users are predominantly English-speaking. This is going to be more directly relevant to our readers on English Wikipedia than tragedies in Mali and Burkina Faso. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this is currently front-page news on BBC and The Guardian, below their coverage of the Israel-Hamas War and ahead of their coverage on the US House Speaker election. It is also currently front page on Le Monde's French website and El Pais's Spanish website. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the bias, but this should be for a broader community discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are going to give a press conference soon with updates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hang on - so this is more important because the dead were Christian instead of Muslim? I don't think so. Looking ], I'm having problems finding the last year there were only 16 homicides in Maine. Though that this is so high for Maine is a good point. Nfitz (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is likely the deadliest mass shooting in Maine's history according to local news, and the 12th deadliest mass shooting in United States (self-ref to navbox) ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop building strawmen and calm down. Nobody mentioned the identity of the dead, they mentioned the identity of the killers in context. Mali is experiencing multiple major insurgencies and is a borderline failed state, so is Burkina Faso. Mass killings by Islamic terrorist armies are not so unusual in active war zones where they are combatants. JM2023 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of the word Islamic here us both prejudicial and unnecessary.
 * No mass killings in Ukraine? Nfitz (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not prejudicial to state that the terrorists are Islamic, I am talking specifically about Islamic terrorists because they are the type involved in jihadist insurgencies which is what you and I are talking about, and they even self-identify as Islamic and motivated by their sect of Islam. This is tangential and the story has already been posted anyway, we can stop now. JM2023 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You definitely have a point about the systemic bias of Wikipedia, but this isn't a perfect comparison. September 2023 Mali attacks is not anywhere near ITN quality. Karma massacre was created nine days after the event occured, when the news cycle was moving away. Wikipedia is definitely flawed, with a Western-centric slant, but this isn't holding up as a reason to oppose blurbing this particular item.  Bremps  ...  03:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of nomination is the main thing that kept these from being posted. That isn't a fault of the current story. As Bremps pointed out, there were other issues had these been nominated, but the solution is to improve and nominate articles such as these, not punish ones that happen to get more attention. 07:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) La Ovo (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Punish? It's not a contest. Nfitz (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This one is exceptionally bad even for a shooting in the USA. The fact that the perpetrator is still at large means this is especially pertinent.  Bremps  ...  02:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How many times have we heard that?
 * Let's see how the death toll goes past 16. I doubt it will exceed 30. It's all too common. Nfitz (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it did go past 16 (22 as of writing). Judging by the amount of injured, there is definitely a possibility of the death toll reaching 30.  Bremps  ...  03:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Leaning support. This is already monumental for the time and place, and it is almost a certainty that the death toll will rise further in the coming hours, given the number of wounded. BD2412  T 02:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, shootings are more common here in the US than in much of the rest of the world, but 22+ people killed are still very rare. This also happened in part of the country that has a very low homicide rate. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - people are likely looking for this, it emphasizes Wikipedia's dynamism, and for those who aren't aware, will easily hook them, or 3 points out of WP:ITNPURPOSE. 72+ casualties is rare, even for an American shooting— Knightof  theswords  03:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because ITN editors refused to post the Nashville school shooter "per ITN precedent with respect to shooting geography". One would assume the precedent stands. JM2023 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The Nashville shooting had eight casualties, this one has at least 70 (and possibly climbing).  Bremps  ...  03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, the casualities are only 22, not 70 (we don't include wounded) M asem (t) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess, but we also blurbed Robb Elementary School shooting which had the same amount of deaths (assuming the toll from this one does not increase). So we would have a precedent for posting this one.  Bremps  ...  03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Considering Support. Mass shootings may be common in the US but, I may make an exception to this one considering the number of deaths and injuries. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Lean Support Death toll is high, we posted Uvalde which has the same death count but obviously that's different since that one was a school shooting. Yes it's the United States but 20+ deaths is rare even here.  Jbvann05  03:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Rare? Surely there's already been one already this century! That's hardly rare. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN isn't solely for once in a century events. The Nobel Prize wouldn't be blurbed, as its annual. Neither would US Presidential elections and the Olympics, as they are every four years.  Bremps  ...  03:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In a country of 330,000,000+, Yes, mass shootings like this are rare. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment -- CNN pointed out something.... this is near the border between the US and Canada. This isn't just a national concern. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your comment. How would Canada be impacted?  Bremps  ...  04:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's almost 100 miles from Canada. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's near the border between the US and Canada. Actually, maybe I should stop listening to the talking heads, since they apparently think 100 miles is nearby. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's less than a 3-hour drive, without breaking the speed limit. The shootings were about 6 hours ago. BD2412  T 04:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pure speculation to consider this an international concern anyway. A shooting in Serbia doesn't become an international incident just because the shooter could get to a border in a few hours. JM2023 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, if this somehow counts as near enough to the border with Canada then any event in Seattle is also a Canadian concern and any event in Phoenix is a Mexican concern. As a Canadian denizen I am not in the least concerned for Canada here. There could be a joke about those talking heads here about Americans and their poor sense of geography. JM2023 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Not common mass shootings have over 20 deaths in the US. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The number of dead and injured people is much higher than most mass shootings in this country. Already the top story on a few prominent news sites outside the typical US/UK/Canada/Australia groups (such as NHK, Bild, The Hindu, and Marca).  Sounder Bruce  04:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment why not "In the United States, at least 22 people are killed and over 50 are injured in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine"? (why have the numbers been spelled out?)—indopug (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:NUMERAL, numbers above nine can be presented as either numbers or words. Curbon7 (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to the high death toll Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, shooter is a White male with mental health issues. I would have supported this if it was a terrorist or hate crime incident. Unfortunately, shootings in the United States are run of the mill everyday news. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a form of terrorism. That he is white is irrelevant. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it terrorism though? Mass murder is not synonymous with terrorism, terrorism has a political or ideological motivation or goal. JM2023 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just looked at the NYT and its headline for this is currently "At Least 7 Dead in Lewiston as Police Put City on Lockdown" and that was updated just 20 minutes ago. That seems a lot less than the blurb number of 22 and the article number of 15 and so there seems to be a lack of consistent, reliable information.  We should wait on the outcome and investigations. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per Knowledgekid87 Maine does not see such high amounts of homicides. Merlin  s  orca  06:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait, leaning support because the event does seem to be fairly extreme with regard to casualties. However, at the moment, there's too much uncertainty to make a properly informative blurb. CNN is reporting "at least 22". BBC is reporting 16, possibly 22. NYT is reporting "at least 7". I anticipate more info will come to light as the US moves into the daylight hours and official statements are made, at which point a more solid blurb can be formed with multiple agreeing sources.
 * La Ovo (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait. If the death toll is lower, this doesn't appear to pass the (quite correct) high bar we have for persistent US mass shootings.  If it is in the 20s though, that's a different level of significance. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait but leaning to oppose another day, another shooting in the US. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN newsworthy due to the large number of civilian victims. STSC (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Leaning towards support more than oppose. The interest in this case is quite high, and it should get recognition. However, we should delay the posting due to killer not yet found. Until there is concrete information, it would be prudent not to post at this moment Buncha2345 (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - unheard of shooting in Maine, a lot of interest in this case especially as the suspect is at large. As others have mentioned, local sources say there are 16 dead, not the 22 numbers CNN/BBC were reporting earlier. ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 11:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is also of note that this is likely the deadliest mass shooting in Maine (per the Portland Press Herald), and seems to be the 12th deadliest in US history (according to navbox, the Gun Violence Archive puts it at around 8th). ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose plenty of examples provided above where the perpetrator of mass casualty events, despite the notability and significance of the event, is ignored when they don't meet a particular narrative. As others have pointed out, mass shootings in the US are common, and I don't see the reason why we should post about this one compared to others that have occurred this year. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm seeing sources back up the 22 casualty count. Plus, this doesn't happen often in Maine. The fact that the shooter is still at large and a manhunt is underway makes this more newsworthy IMHO ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per consensus above, tweaking the blurb to account for the article's listed death toll + putting the country at the end per Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 106. I gave no weight to the "another day, another shooting in the US" !vote. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Though your assessment of consensus is a valid one (and I agree with it), it's worth noting that "another day, another shooting" has over the last few years on ITN/C become a shorthand for a larger argument being made about the newsworthiness of mass shootings in the U.S., and the fact that the argument has shrunken to its now-abbreviated form might be masking that fact. Every few months it feels like, we have random active shooter events across the country where 10 or 20 people at a time would be killed in schools, colleges, bars, shopping malls, etc., making news headlines but otherwise following a formulaic cycle: shock and sadness, "thoughts and prayers", outrage, promises of action, fading into obscurity, and so on. Insofar as anything occurring as a result of the shootings such as policy changes or mass protests, they were essentially muted in long-term significance.
 * The abbreviation was due to the fact that we were regularly having nominations - I'd hate to put a number on it, maybe six or seven in a year - for such mass shootings in the U.S. and having to continually restate this point probably became tedious for commenters, who themselves were probably dealing with their own form of bewilderment at seeing these types of noms frequently. So I don't know whether or not knowing this makes any difference, but I just wanted to provide background in case you weren't sure why these types of !votes spring up seemingly unchallenged. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent points Walt. Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything you said applies equally to earthquakes, fires, floods, wars, assassinations, and so on. Levivich (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Walt, when assessing consensus I judge comments based on ITN's guidelines. If a person wants to write "another day, another shooting in the US", that's an immediate WP:ITNATA. I only specifically noted it here because it was also a problematically glib comment about a horrifying incident. (I'm pretty sure we'd all look down on "another day, another murder in X" or "another day, another bomb dropped in Y"; this isn't different.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts. However sad and execrable they may be. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ed, that's a moral argument, which is not allowed (WP:ITNATA), whereas pointing out that mass shootings have little significance is permitted. 9WP:ITNSIGNIF) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Johnson elected Speaker of the House

 * Support as nom p  b  p  21:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The removal was notable enough for a blurb since it was the first time ever, the election of a new speaker not so much. This is not the head of government in the US. <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 21:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The article that should be assessed is October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, not the general speaker article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It took a long time for the speaker election, but not notable on the whole. Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close We all know that nomination was going to come up; we all know that there is not going to be a consensus. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly significant and in the news. The nomination needs work through.  The article should be October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election and we need some news sources and an image.  I shall update it accordingly. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - internal politics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The current four blurbs are all elections of some sort and all internal politics for particular countries too. The speaker election seems more significant than all of them because it has more impact on the global financial system and ongoing conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The other elections are a result of public elections, while this was just, effectively, a body of about 220 ppl (the GOP) finally agreeing for one position that is not publicly elected. '''M asem (t) 22:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The details of the process are not important – different places have different methods such as coups and we still post them. What matters is that we have a result which is more significant than the failed referendum in Australia, for example.  That happened over 10 days ago and so is quite stale now. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, argue against having those elections then. This one though is internal politics of little actual importance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At what point does Andrew’s “But I don’t like it” argumentative style cross the line between annoyance and disruption? The   Kip  02:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A constitutional amendment referendum of a major democracy, even a failed one, is more important than the appointment of a presiding officer of one chamber of a bicameral legislature in the middle of a congressional incarnation. While "Internal Politics" is not a reason to not blurb something and actually goes against two different guidelines (ITNR and the other one against opposing things for being non-international), internal house of representatives politics to elect a presiding officer who is nothing close to a head of state or government is not significant enough for ITN. JM2023 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How does the replacement of one GOP presiding officer with another GOP presiding officer have significant impact on the global financial system? This isn't a Fed chairman or a president. JM2023 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This Republican is so crazy he makes his predecessor look sane. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, simply calling the new officer extremely crazy and giving 0 further explanation. that really helps me see that this could drastically alter the global financnial system. JM2023 (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If this event were to take place in any other country, editors would have the common sense to resist the urge to nominate it for ITN, because it's just about politicians choosing someone for a particular role, and not the result of a public election, nor relating to the head of the executive branch.  The fact this story happened in the US does not make it any more important. Chrisclear (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We posted Lizz Truss's resignation and replacement, and the prime minister's position is nothing but a bunch of politicians choosing someone for a particular role. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Liz Truss was the head of the executive branch of government. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is not. I updated my previous comment to reflect this distinction. Chrisclear (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it's a bit too wonkish for me. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close at this point as well, parliamentary speakership isnt ITN worthy.✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   23:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that in spite of the similar title, this position is not analogous to positions such as Speaker of the House of Commons; even a brief overview of their selection, powers, & traditional role does indicate that the closest parallel in Westminster-style systems is in fact Prime Minister. The United States is fairly unusual for straying far from that system, so it lacks a single unitary leader. This is particularly noteworthy as the United States can thus have a "split government" (as it does now) where different houses are held by different parties. - Nottheking (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * except that a Prime Minister is also chief executive in the executive branch, chairman of the Cabinet, appointer of the rest of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries (giving them way more control over the legislators through patronage), and strong leader of the always more powerful lower house or unicameral parliament.
 * compared to an American speaker who only has power over the less powerful lower house through control of the whip and the agenda.
 * a prime minister and an American speaker are even less parallel than an American speaker and a Westminster speaker. JM2023 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much less newsworthy than the removal of the Speaker, which was posted. One story on this internal political maneuvering is enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on Principle, Oppose on Quality We released the Kevin McCarthy's ousting to ITN, so I feel like we should have some closure on the circumstance. However, the article's in rough shape for ITN though. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose on Principle, Oppose on Quality The removal of a Speaker (de facto a fractional Head of Government for the weird, very un-Westminster style of government the United States uses) was indeed very unusual, noteworthy, and newsworthy. However, the selection of a new speaker, while briefly news, is much less unusual. We can compare this to elections: in nominal circumstance, a new government forming in any country isn't noteworthy, as instead the event that is newsworthy is the preceding election that elected said legislature. (that then formed a government)


 * The only real exception to this is when the outcome of government formation isn't considered "obvious" to the media & other sources. (e.g, a very fragmented election that requires an unpredictable coalition be formed) However in this case, the Republicans had a majority, and it was probably inevitable that they'd pick a Speaker that they could agree upon. I could have seen it being ITN-worthy had this been a particularly bizarre outcome, (such as accidentally electing Hakeem Jeffries) but "The Republican majority successfully picks one of their own as a new leader" is much more ho-hum than that. - Nottheking (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. As someone who opposed the McCarthy blurb, at least that could be justified by being the first time it’d happened in a very long time; this, however, is your average internal political event. The   Kip  01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning support. Ascension of the head of a coequal branch of one of the largest governments in the world. While the presidency gets more attention, this is on par with a new president taking office in the middle of the term. BD2412  T 02:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a general election, not a head of state, not a head of government, not even the head of a unicameral legislature. And we already did the removal. Not significant enough at all . JM2023 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good-faith nom. I feel we are opening a Pandora's box of non-heads of state being blurbed. This really only pertains to one party of one chamber getting their act together.


 * This doesn't impact to my oppose, but would most Wikipedians support a Removal of Mike Johnson blurb à la Removal of Kevin McCarthy if this sort of thing happens again? I think ITN is just generally unprepared for the norm-shattering stuff of the US politics of the 2020s.  Bremps  ...  03:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it becomes a regular event then no one cares anymore. Presumably it was blurbed because it had never happened in America before. JM2023 (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already blurbed the removal, since it was unique. This event is not particularly significant. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As covered above, this is not a head of state position and is not usually blurbed. The most notable part of the process was the time taken rather than Johnson's election anyway - but either way, Speaker of the House is not a role we would consider nominating, nor similar positions in other countries. La Ovo (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Otis

 * Wait until the damage is reported to see how significant it is. JM2023 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait – Same reasoning as above. This probably deserves it, but I'd like a little more info on the effects from reliable sources first. Penitentes (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For a few hours yet, communications are still cut in the area (electricity out, cell service out, etc), which happens regularly with the worst disasters. Acapulco is fairly well connected, however, so news will probably start coming in later on Wednesday. This time we are not looking at a days-long Lac-Mégantic silence (which led many ITN editors at the time to think nothing significant had happened). Incidentally, the next two ISS orbits will take it almost directly over the area, starting in about an hour. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per above. The   Kip  16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait Not going to oppose since this almost certainly will warrant posting, but we need to know a lot more on the impact.
 * <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 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The time for waiting is over. Support alt blurb two which effectively combines the record landfall intensity and impact. <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 14:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for the initial reports, although I would certainly support this blurb as this is truly unprecedented for this part of Mexico (although we already saw this intensification rate with Hurricane Patricia 8 years ago, that hurricane did not hit a major metropolitan area). It will take days/weeks to know the full scale of the damage, but once the preliminary situation reports get released, I think it would be right to post this event to ITN. Vida0007 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Formally changing my vote to support as more details became known (especially with regards to the death toll). Also, I think the blurb should be updated to include the [preliminary] damage total once it becomes known. Vida0007 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support We probably cannot expect a lot of details for a while (maybe for weeks), but the initial reports we got over the past 12-24 hours should be enough for ITN. Renerpho (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the first alt blurb. Renerpho (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support due to the large number of fatalities, usually around 20 is the cutoff for ITN. --72.68.134.26 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted a version of an altblurb, though I might suggest this alternative if there is support for it: "Hurricane Otis becomes the first known Category 5 storm to make landfall in the East Pacific, killing at least 27 people." Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The most interesting feature of this storm seems to be its rapid intensification, increasing its wind speed by over 100 mph in a day and breaking the 12-hour record. See Hurricane Otis: The mystery of why storms suddenly intensify. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Niels Holst-Sørensen

 * Needs referencing. Stephen 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Missing two sources for timings in Athletic career, but otherwise good. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ina Cronjé

 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Iorio

 * support dont know much about them, but the article seems pretty well sourced. Lukt64 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Discography needs REFs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is there to reference? It's just a list of works, with no statements. Motörhead, Black Sabbath (good article), Metallica (featured article), Megadeth (featured article), etc, do not have references either. Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i think there is a general trend at least recently of people getting nominated and then editors pointing out unsourced filmographies/discographies followed by other editors pointing out that most filmographies/discographies are not sourced and then other editors trying to cite the whole filmographies. Seems to be an ongoing issue. JM2023 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Recently"? If you read the guidelines at WP:ITN, you'll see WP:ITNQUALITY which says Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. That has been there since 26 March 2018, pursuant to this talk page discussion, and the previous proposal that was before the rewriting implies that this has been the standard for years. So recently is inaccurate; this has been standard practice on ITN/C for a long time. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about any guidelines, I was talking about discussions like this one. Not my fault that people dont follow them. Although having only found that one example I think I misremembered there being more than 1 recent example. Gets confusing when so many blue links are dying all the time. JM2023 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems I initially misread your comments, my apologies. I do agree with your sentiment though, this is a rather persistent issue that happens on ITN, that many editors come and argue about whether discographies, bibliographies and the like need sources. I don't think it's a general trend recently though, more of an perennial issue that occasionally pops up. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make much sense for ITN to have standards higher than those of featured articles. Cambalachero (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the articles you mentioned have separate articles for the discography, this article doesn't. The standard isn't higher, it's just that the referencing for those discographies is in the side article instead. Since this article doesn't have a separate article for the discography, it needs to be referenced. And we do need a refs for a discography. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Roundtree

 * Who is the man that will fix this article? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Shaft! 2601:199:4180:B980:1CF5:B0C6:565B:6D55 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're damn right 2601:199:4180:B980:AD9D:6196:1455:A138 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Film section of his filmography is now entirely sourced, while the Television section is still lacking some citations (he had quite a career)! I welcome anyone interested to take a crack at looking over the prose—I've only really been focusing on the filmography tables. — Matthew  / (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just given it a shot, and it should be slightly better now. I would make a few notes, though: firstly, some statements throughout the prose likely need citations, as well; secondly, we should find better sources that NNDB and IMDb, since they're usually avoided due to their user-generated content. Still, the article looks almost ready to go for me! Oltrepier (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * and : I've sourced the "Career" section and just starting to hit the "Television" section with more references. And I agree–he had quite a career! A bit more to go; thanks to both of you for your help! And as Oltrepier noted above, the NNDB and IMDb sources should be replaced with reliable sources since they're user-generated. Tails   Wx  21:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With relation to filmography, Imdb is not user based. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography entries on IMDb have to be reviewed by IMDb staff, but they're still user-submitted, and the consensus is that they're not reliable (see WP:IMDB). It looks like the only time IMDb is used as a source on Roundtree's article at the moment is for the list of his awards, and that should be replaced by reliable sources. — Matthew  / (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @MatthewHoobin: I've added reliable sources to the awards section, which should cover all the nominated and won awards except for one, which I couldn't find references for. Tails   Wx  02:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've mostly finished the television section, there's a few shows that still needs references, but overall it looks in good shape, and the sourcing is sufficient for ITN posting. Support. Tails   Wx  01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support after the improvements we made. Oltrepier (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Support per above. — Matthew  / (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyclone Tej

 * support i dont ever see hurricanes in this area, and considering that its right next to yemen and somalia, 2 of the most wartorn countries on earth, this could cause thousands of deaths Lukt64 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Cyclones hitting the Arabian Peninsula is hardly rare. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: While the article has been expanded, there are still many problems with the article. A tag has been placed that the article is missing information after the storm was named. Also, the cyclone appears to have dissipated as it's no longer tracked by the IMD and JTWC. I'd still support Wait until the full damage from the cyclone becomes clear. If the damage and deaths were minimal, I'd oppose, as that would not be notable enough to be posted. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  due to quality - multiple empty, orange-tagged sections in the article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * can you review the article again? I've filled the empty sections  Abo Yemen ✉  13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until impact becomes more clear - fair enough on the quality point ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even if the sections are filled, the cyclone's total damage and deaths are still not clear. Sorry, but for now, this is still not ITN worthy. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The cyclone has displaced 1800 families according to the Yemeni Red Crescent  Abo Yemen  ✉  17:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per article quality concerns noted above. Wait until further impacts occur, I'd like to see more significant impacts before posting. Tails   Wx  13:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've filled the empty sections; Can you change it to wait instead of oppose + wait  Abo Yemen ✉  13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, Leaning Oppose. x2 The article is nowhere near ready to be posted as there are many empty sections and tags. Also, Wait until the deaths and damage is clear. Also, until the cyclone's aftermath becomes clear, I suggest changing the blurb.
 * Oppose as of now as impacts do not appear pursuant to that that we would expect for a tropical cyclone posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing a reason to post this at this time. Landfall is not sufficient for an ITN posting.
 * <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 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait, lean oppose - The cyclone's effects aren't entirely known, but thus far from what is known I'm not seeing enough to justify blurbing. The   Kip  18:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it’s been roughly three days since landfall and human impact seems minimal, besides the flooding/displacement typical of any hurricane. Not blurb-worthy. The   Kip  19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait before effects of the cyclone are determined. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until we get damage and casualty reports Elisecars727 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose barring any serious death toll. Flooding is a natural result of any of these types of storm systems, but the effects seem rather limited even in this case. --M asem (t) 00:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MINIMUMDEATHS ''' Abo Yemen ✉


 * Oppose for now Until it is clear the impact of the storm and the (notorious) number of deaths it may cause. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2 Dead, 150 Injured, and 10,000 Displaced, source  Abo Yemen ✉  13:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not enough for an ITN posting as everyone here has stated. While WP:MINIMUMDEATHS doesn't exist, we don't post WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tropical cyclones. Single digit death toll events are almost never posted on ITN unless it's the assassination of an important figure or something of that nature. <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 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Noah. This is the consensus that we have been taking here for some time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment that infobox needs updating. It is still stuck on 24+ hours ago, before landfall. 50.101.173.184 (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the infobox is always updated  Abo Yemen ✉  12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, be careful to not approach the point of WP:BLUDGEONing. You've responded to six different votes thus far. The   Kip  16:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry I'll stop now  Abo Yemen ✉  18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Landfall is not significant, effects are not yet fully known. Also the alt blurb has four grammatical errors. JM2023 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Three minor capitalization errors (on a par with German nouns), readily fixable.
 * I agree that the Arabian Peninsula is becoming a downright common place for cyclones. However, they are extremely rare as far south as Yemen, although Yemen also happens to be particularly vulnerable due to continued (proxied) civil war. The terrain is conducive to landslides; but the current difficulty is mostly (desert-style) heavy rain and flooding. Different scale, but at landfall wind speeds made it somewhere between a category 1 and 2. Cyclone Chapala was stronger at landfall, and had a somewhat similar track at landfall, thankfully also avoiding major cities. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i am almost certain you meant to reply this paragraph to Lukt64 at the top and not me. JM2023 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Walker

 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Desert Crown

 * Posted Stephen 22:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: István Láng

 * Support Article is in good shape and looks ready for posting in its current state. Good work! Tails   Wx  02:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 14:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bill Kenwright

 * Oppose. Many sections in the article needs citations. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bishan Singh Bedi

 * Article needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good article about an important cricket player. Srf123 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A handful {cn} tags need to be addressed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've added references and removed the citation needed tags. Courtesy ping PFHLai. Tails   Wx  15:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Tails Wx, for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Unitary Platform presidential primaries

 * Oppose. We don't have a habit of covering similar primaries, and I don't believe it to be globally shaking enough to make an exception just yet - especially with how lopsided the results seem to be. River10000 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably belongs in ITN. It is just not important enough for Ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even there. We don't post primary elections. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware it would be uncommon, but it's one of the reasons why I highlighted the relevancy of these ones and how important they are for Venezuela. I understand if there's still opposition, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Venezuela's elections are rigged and Machado is barred from holding public office anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's not even a blurb, how is one suppose to post this on ITN? Editor 5426387 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination is for an "Ongoing" entry, not a blurb, but I'm not sure whether it is even ongoing. It seems like the voting has already ended and all that remains is to count the votes and declare a winner. However, I don't think we usually blurb presidential primary results. For example, even the ITN nomination for Trump's victory in the 2016 Republican primary was rejected. Unless there's something really noteworthy about this specific primary election I don't think it should be posted. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above IP user’s rationale. Primaries in any country simply typically don’t rise to the level of ITN’s standards to post. The   Kip  01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good faith nom but can probably be WP:SNOW closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles E. Young

 * Support Article looks good. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. Seems ready to be posted. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Marked "Ready".  is marked for too many quotes, but that's a yellow tag, not the orange or red showstoppers mentioned at WP:ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Meets criteria. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vincent Asaro

 * Support Article is in good shape. There's just one citation need tag that needs to be sorted out though. I would like to see that fixed before it's posted. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we need more referencing in the section on his "Mob career", esp. when pointing fingers at mobsters and murder suspect. --PFHLai (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Samantha Woll

 * I have initial concerns with this and BLP1E - while her life is being documented in wake of her tragic death, lack of sourcing before her death is a problem. M asem (t) 12:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am also unconvinced that she was notable before her death; I suspect that if an article had been constructed prior to that, it would probably have been redirected to the synagogue article should it have gone to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Betsy Rawls

 * Earwig found similar text at another website. No clue who copied who. Also, the bullet-points and table after the prose need references; please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's some inconclusive analysis of this on Talk:Betsy Rawls. —Cryptic 20:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Information on wins is unsourced. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Swiss federal election

 * Support, though should also contain a piece of info about the grand coalition cabinet that the Swiss are basically permanently stuck in. The blurb can be seen as a bit deceiving.
 * River10000 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the election for Switzerland's Federal Council will occur on December 13. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support; major news coverage and national elections are ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see Talk:2023_Swiss_federal_election. The article probably should be brought up to date before it goes ITN (but I'm incapable of correcting the numbers at this moment). Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk  13:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I just updated the percentages. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITNR, maybe a bit light on prose, but should have more citations. some paragraphs have nothing cited. JM2023 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobi

 * Weak support - yes, article is short but I think its just long enough and has just enough citations. Not much more can be expected for this article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficient. There is one outstanding cn tag though, and I would like to see that fixed before it hits the main page.  Bremps  ...  00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Mooonswimmer 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is long enough and does not have any sourcing issues. Mooonswimmer 16:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD/Blurb: Bobby Charlton

 * Blurb As the article says, "Widely considered one of the greatest players of all time" and so seems comparable with Jim Brown who was blurbed earlier this year. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad comparison. Brown was more than an athlete. See Jim Brown and Jim Brown. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bobby Charlton was way bigger than Jim Brown.
 * Just look at number of wiki pages.
 * Brown, 38, and Charlton has 67 as of now. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Number of wiki pages"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was referring to articles in other Wikipedia languages. I've always thought the 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup was a bigger event than the 2023 Cricket World Cup; it's written in more Wikipedia languages (36 for basketball vs 30 for cricket). I guess Brown was bigger than these two events? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was. If so, it's irrelevant what other languages he has a page on as we're here on the English Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are always arguments about worldwide fame. Number of articles in different languages indicates how much a person is known in the world. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I referred to. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. You can use langviews to show the readership across all languages and this is a good way of assessing global impact and interest.  Comparing the all-time, all-language views, we have
 * Bobby Charlton = 10,777,838
 * Jim Brown = 10,224,328
 * As I said, they are quite comparable. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice. I tried comparing the 4 world cups this year:
 * 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup (5.6 million)
 * 2023 Rugby World Cup (6.8 million)
 * 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup (12.4 million)
 * 2023 Cricket World Cup (13.3 million, of which 12.9 million is from en.wiki)
 * Howard the Duck (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most views for Jim Brown come from English wiki. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it would make sense to blurb Jim Brown as we did, as this is the English wiki. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Unnecessary, RD is fine. Not ready for posting yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As in pop music and acting, the field of leading personalities in association football is so vast that only the very best should be blurbed. Johan Cruyff was not blurbed in March 2016, which I find outrageous as he was one of few people to change the way football is both played and managed. Charlton is well known and recognised within football - ten stories right now on the front page of Marca and the lead on L'Equipe while games are being played in France - but was not a global icon like Pelé or Maradona. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not do right.
 * He was a global icon. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe global icon was not the right term to use, but there's a bracket where there's Pelé, Maradona, Messi and Ronaldo and very few others. Not fact, just my opinion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see nothing on that page to suggest he was a "global icon". One of the best players of all time? Sure. But there's too many of those to blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. One of the greatest players of all time. The only winning captain of England, winner of European Cup, record holder for Manchester United. Obvious blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to take away from someone who achieved a lot more than I ever will, but Charlton didn't captain England in 1966, that was Bobby Moore. Charlton also lived to see his records broken for England appearances (by Moore in his own career) and goals (by Wayne Rooney and then Harry Kane), and Manchester United appearances (Giggs) and goals (Rooney). Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See Guardian obit for impact. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/oct/21/sir-bobby-charlton-obituary Kirill C1 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One Guardian obit does not establish blurb-worthiness. It would need a lot more coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb. Very clearly one of the best soccer players ever. The key word is "one" of. Have we blurbed a soccer player that is father down the "best" list yet? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not from soccer, but we blurbed Shane Warne with 30 wiki pages. Charlton has almost seventy. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic, if Corbin Bleu were to pass away, he would be a clear choice for a blurb, given that he has articles in 213 different language Wikipedias. See Wikidata. BangJan1999 18:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is actually fascinating. How in the hell does this guy have an article on nearly every Wikipedia? AryKun (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At the risk of derailing the conversation, that's truly amazing. I've never heard of him before, but Bleu has more Wikipedia articles than Mohammed, the Buddha, Napoleon, and Elizabeth II.
 * Does anyone know the story with this? Did one of his fans decide to create an entry for him in 200 languages, or was it an SEO campaign, or something like that? I refuse to believe this occurred "naturally". I checked some of the revision histories in little-known languages (e.g. Greenlandic, Norfuk) and they were created by Saudi Arabian IP users, mostly circa 2010. Bizarre. Edit: I found a news article about this on Insider.com and they came to the same conclusion about a dedicated fan from Saudi Arabia.
 * Anyway, this example definitely makes the case that number of sitelinks is not an infallible metric for notability. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It never is, either on or off enwiki. Pop culture and sports etc. fans, editathons and numerous other factors influence these. The only focus should be on the main article of a topic and the relative importance of that in its field or otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And Warne was a mistake. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for reasons given above, no indication that he had a significant influence on the sport as someone like Pele. Oppose RD for numerous unsourced statements on this article. --M asem (t) 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. AryKun (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RD at least. Yes, one of the best players ever (and I grew up in England with him at his finest in the 1960s - he was a big part of English life at the time). Unsure whether he warrants a blurb.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb since I wouldn't vote for a blurb for any sportsballist, let alone one who I've never heard of This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very short on citations. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I don't think he was so impactful that he reaches blurb level. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remember that when the next barely known baseball player get's a blurb. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above rationale. Here we go again. The   Kip  23:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Global survey It's the day after the death and, following the discussion of languages above, I just looked at the main pages of the 15 biggest Wikipedias to see how they compare. Bobby Charlton's death is currently on the main pages of the following language editions: Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish.  Looking at the exceptions, it seems that the following languages don't do any recent deaths: Italian, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese while the Arabic edition only seems to list people from the Arab world.  So the only two major languages which are dragging their feet on this news are English and Swedish.  "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are quality issues (lack of sources) that still present that prevent this from even going to RD. M asem (t) 11:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that misrepresentation of statistics. I checked every single version you mentioned, and he is there in RD. We are not dragging our feet for RD, we're discussing whether or not he should have a blurb. None of those Wikipedias have him as a blurb, so what they have done is irrelevant here. AryKun (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We're discussing all aspects but I didn't get into the RD/blurb issue for those other languages because those details vary. For example, the German posting is "Bobby Charlton (86), englischer Fußballspieler († 21. Oktober)" while the French have "Bobby Charlton (photo)".  These provide more details than an English RD and so are better.  But my point was not the level of detail but the fact that most of those other languages have posted the news in a timely fashion.  Presumably they are not hampered by the toxic process that we have here, which makes a battleground out of a simple announcement. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia does that for every RD they post, as you would have seen by the fact that the other 4 RD's right next to it also have the same type of shortdesc. The French Wikipedia also adds "photo" to every RD that is currently a photo. That is not details varying, that's just different RD formats, which is irrelevant to the discussion here. AryKun (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is making it toxic or a battleground here. It flat out fails quality purposes on en.wiki, which is a necessary requirement before even RD posting. Obviously, the other wikis have different quality rationales, which don't apply here. The de.wiki version of the articles has nearly zero sourcing, for example, which would never fly for even a normal BLP article here. M asem (t) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think comparing other language wikis to the English wiki is an effective strategy for making these discussions more toxic. They do what they do and aren't relevant to what we do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to send Andrew to ANI or not? I thought we were going to try and make an improvement on ITN/C as far as toxic behavior goes, and he has been repeatedly bringing up irrelevant statistics and arguments to nominations which do nothing to advance the discussion, nor help out whatsoever in getting the item posted. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No one can stop you. JM2023 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do any of you agree that 's conduct on ITN is worth taking to ANI? BangJan1999 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Questions like that is not what that ping should be used for. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb on notability. JM2023 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So being a World famous player and World Cup winner isn't notable enough? Perhaps he should have played baseball or Gridiron. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you're at least a current head of state or major political figure then you're not notable enough. I wouldn't even blurb Jimmy Carter. Do not strawman me. JM2023 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Appreciate we won't be adding a blurb but it's now overdue an RD. Conay (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - per my previously expressed view that people who are the subject of full length in depth obituaries in multiple sources in multiple countries merit a blurb. NYT, WaPo, The Times (London), Le Monde. Sources around the world view Bobby Charlton's passing as a news story worthy of significant space, so should we. And for the record, I had never heard of him prior to my NYT news alert, but, as ever, my own experiences are not the basis for inclusion or exclusion here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb considered one of the greatest of all time, with 200+ goals and a World Cup, he deserves his own blurb, RIP Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Depending on who you ask, Sir Bobby Charlton is somewhere between the 20th and 30th best football player of all time. While talented and mourned, he doesn't reach the level needed for a blurb, as that tends to be reserved for the GOAT in a field, or at least the greatest of their generation.  Blurbing Bobby Charlton would be on par with blurbing Gale Sayers in the NFL, Tom Seaver in baseball, Bobby Clarke in ice hockey, or Allan Border in cricket.  While I'd agree that bigger sports have a stronger claim to cultural relevance and therefore notability, I still think that Bobby Charlton falls short of the blurb mark. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak support blurb should the massive sourcing problems be overcome. Charlton was certainly a massive figure in football, but I am still unconvinced that he rises to the level of a blurb; there are a number of still-living players who have achieved greatness but probably fall into this category.  Indeed, there are very few players who would clearly qualify for a blurb (Messi, C. Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckenbauer, possibly Maldini and Buffon?) and hopefully we won't need to worry about any of thosev any time soon. Oh, and George Weah, but that's not just related to football. Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb - we can't blurb the death of every famous sportsperson. In this case, it is just "old man dies". -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? It seems any old baseball player gets a blurb. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This October, the Real Main Page commemorates the deaths of five old baseball players and four young. Well, four between 50 and 70. All nine are probably fondly remembered by fans with the propensity to do so, yet none had their portrait hung in this tiny upper-right corner of a box some like to pretend is the important place. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb, but the RD/Blurb argument means we've gone three days without posting anything at all, so let's get it posted somewhere (RD) and then upgrade to a blurb if and when consensus emerges. 2A02:C7E:30F9:A600:FC7C:5C6F:5B54:7090 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article needs some ref work before posting can be done. Once the sourcing issues are addressed, I would support a blurb given how he's regarded as "one of the greatest players of all time", meaning he was influential in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyclone Storm Tej

 * Wait until landfall actually occurs and we can determine the extent of damage. --M asem (t) 14:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No content in the target section and seemingly no related draft at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * fixed link. Check it now  Abo Yemen ✉  16:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The page has been changed to a redirect on several occasions, by several people, as recently as today, due to the storm not being set to make landfall for at least a few days. All have been reverted by you. - Rockin  Jack  18  17:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * can anyone close this nom  Abo Yemen ✉  17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) TV-D1 mission

 * Weak oppose - We usually only post launches rather than abort tests like this, but this is still a really cool event. I'm very impressed with how ISRO is advancing atm. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose An unmanned test launch is typically not the type of space exploration news we post. --M asem (t) 14:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Precarious and Masem. Certainly an objective for the Indian crewed program, but not exactly fit for ITN. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that it is the fourth country, not the first, not even the second, and not even the third. There is no way that this is notable. JM2023 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bill Hayden

 * From 1989 to 1996 per the article. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on condition that the citation needed tags are removed.  Bremps  ...  00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Weakest of Opposes 99% of the article is pretty well-sourced. However I cannot support because of the 1% that needs to be cited. ❤History  Theorist❤  03:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 5 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Haydn Gwynne

 * Oppose Career section needs more refs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One cn tag but it now looks sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems full referenced now. Stephen 01:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * could one of you do this one of mine please? Stephen 21:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  21:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Atsushi Sakurai

 * Support Article doesn't cover his early life, but aside from that it's fine.  Bremps  ...  02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Atsushi Sakurai lacks prose and sources. Are these books about him or written by him? --PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Husband

 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ^agree with Monarch ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Summa Navaratnam

 * Support - article has enough sources ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Sakharov Prize

 * Support and I would see no reason in bolding the death article as that is precisely what the award acknowledged (as well as that article being in good shape --M asem  (t) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as the main article on the Sakharov Prize is pretty much a stub, as it's mostly a table. Would love to see more information in there, then I would be happy to support. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article for Sakharov Prize is a list, and that's why there's comparatively less prose. Lists should be evaluated differently from other articles — this one is even a featured list. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither bolded article has been updated to mention the prize. Stephen 22:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work The prize is a motion of the European Parliament and it's not clear who gets the money as Mahsa Amini is dead while "Woman, Life, Freedom" is a slogan not an organisation. There were similar issues last year as the prize was awarded to the "Ukrainian People" and we didn't post it.  The nominated article doesn't explain what actually happens in such cases and it doesn't give other details like the votes in that parliament.  When even the Nobel Peace Prize is criticised here, it's not clear why we should give prominence to such weak sauce.
 * Rather than highlighting this empty gesture, it would be more informative to look again at Mahsa Amini protests, which we posted a year ago and ran in Ongoing. That is still being updated and now has an Aftermath section where we read that "...as of September 2023, a crackdown is in process ... a "Hijab and Chastity Bill" passed Iran's parliament, calling for new punishments on women who go unveiled, including prison terms of up to 10 years ...".  That seems to be the more relevant parliament as they have the power and jurisdiction.
 * So, if we're posting this issue again, it should be done fully so that readers understand what is now actually happening on the ground. Here's a summary of the overall situation which was published on the anniversary by yet another parliament.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. All three articles look fine to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Mahsa Jina Amini has an article now. Wikilinks changed accordingly. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article on Mahsa isn't great- it includes excessive family detail and says she was a perfect student etc. This kind of stuff always happens when people die but it's not great. It also says she was selected as a candidate for the prize (ie on a shortlist) rather than awarded the prize. The women, life, freedom article is contradictory - was it coined by the protestors, or the YPG or even Abdullah Öcalan himself? Secretlondon (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Syed Muhammad Zafar

 * Oppose for now. There is an unsourced sentence in the "career" section. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement that every sentence is sourced &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Now looks good and well cited. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from the uncited statement in the career section, there are also 2 unsourced statements in the official posts section and the bibliography needs more sources or ISBNs. Also the infobox mentions his spouse but that isn't sourced anywhere and one of his children isn't sourced either. Side note but is it really necessary to name all of his children? Only one of them has a article (which happens to be the one that isn't sourced too). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Burt Young

 * The filmography doesn't have any sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Filmography is largely unsourced. The same footnotes are also needed in the prose on his acting career. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lasse Berghagen

 * Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. No problems found and looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Russia withdraws from CTBT treaty

 *  Probably support in principle, article not ready The article has not yet been updated at all, nor has its companion article List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The map also fails to reflect the change. Can someone confirm that this is significant enough to post? My understanding is that the treaty was already not in force, but this development is still quite an alarming shock to the status quo and might indicate that future Russian nuclear tests are to be expected. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I retract the "probably support" bit given the comments below, although I remain unsure about significance. Would we post a blurb if, say, China or the US were to ratify the treaty? Revoking ratification seems at least as newsworthy as ratifying, especially given the context of an ongoing conflict. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Among the countries that haven't ratified the CTBT Treaty are the majority of nuclear weapon states (China, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States). France, Russia and the United Kingdom were the only nuclear weapon states that have ratified it. So, Russia's move from the smaller to the larger group isn't really that important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I concur with Kiril; I believe Russia has said they don't intend to actually resume nuclear testing, just that they don't want to be in the treaty any more. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The treaty has not even entered into force, so it's moot at this point, thirty years later. --Bedivere (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose first off, not notable as stated per above, second, article has no mention of Russia withdrawing from the treaty, and third, it has not come into effect yet. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril; if the world's other major nuclear power, the US, had ratified it, it would be more notable.
 * Unknown-Tree (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Natalee Holloway

 * Comment The confessor is the one making news here, his should be the target article and picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not as a significant/well-known/impacting as a crime like the Zodiac Killer, and in the current landscape of news, this really doesn't cut it. It might have been a long time puzzling case, but also extols the issues of missing white woman syndrome of media bias. --M asem (t) 22:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - well-known case, but to the extent that there is a systemic bias towards western news on ITN, I think this would qualify. A similar story elsewhere would never be proposed as a blurb. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is basically tabloid news. While undoubtedly important to the family and loved ones of the victim, it has no real significance in the broader world. Suggest this be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Serial killers are known to lie and say they killed more then they actually did. For all we know, van der Sloot is lying, and even if he isn't, as Masem notes, this is hardly the highest-profile murder. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - meets II, III, and IV of WP:ITNPURPOSE; this would a great chance to put a featured article on ITN, for those who aren't aware, it would surely be somewhat of an interesting story, and it would diversify the range of stories included on here. We should not be limiting stories just due to geographical location on its own; hell, if we were to use the rationale frequently used for doing that when it comes to say, mass shootings, that would actually lend more credence to the position of posting, since the reason why this wouldn't be posted if it happened in say, India or Nigeria, is since stuff like this is unfortunately much more common. — Knightof  theswords  00:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as stale, provincial, special interest only, all of which are typically grounds for SNOW closure This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. The   Kip  02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prime example of Missing white woman syndrome. We don't post news about most murders going on in the world on ITN. Canuck 89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page  02:53, October 19, 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. The headline here is that a person long-believed to have almost certainly been murdered by a certain person is now known to have been almost certainly been murdered by that certain person. BD2412  T 03:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carla Bley

 * Support - nice nom, Gerda. I think it looks good enough to post ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sure. Well sourced and decent enough. I do not see any problems. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Meets requirements. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 19:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted The discography section should have some content but it's not a show-stopper.  Schwede 66  20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza hospital explosion

 * It is a part of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but 500 casualties is enough to be on the ITN in my opinion. Thats, just, a lot. Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * support Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * we didnt post every massacre done by Hamas when they were attacking, we just had a general terrorist attack blurb which then became a war. so why should we put every attack done by Israel when we already have the general war in ongoing? JM2023 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is more deadly than the entire Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This is a big deal. Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There were roughly 1,100 Israelis killed in the initial wave of attacks; I'm not sure what you mean. The   Kip  18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is not more deadly than that; over 1,100 Israelis, including many children, were slaughtered during that attack, and last I heard they were still finding bodies. Secondly, this event did not start a conflict. Thirdly, it's still included in the war. Fourthly, the article now has a POV tag and it's alleged this could be a Hamas rocket blamed on Israel; we should be especially cautious of Hamas and allies considering their massive outbursts of genocidal antisemitism recently. Unless we have a Srebrenica situation of sufficient magnitutde then I'm opposed to adding events like this. JM2023 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support publishing it soon, but make sure it is definitively known whoever launched the attack. Most sources are saying that Israel bombed the hospital but there's claims that it was actually caused by PIJ. Either way, the destruction of over 500 lives is unimaginable and as newsworthy as the most horrible losses of life of the 21st century. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have ongoing for this reason, and I do not see why we need a separate article for this. --M asem (t) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reiterating my Oppose after 24+ hr, where it is clear that the damage may not have been as extensive as it was previously claimed (due to prior strikes) and that while I know the Pentagon has said it was from Hamas activities, there's still so much unknown, including the death toll, that this should be an aspect of the ongoing war but not a headline we should be trying to feature. --M asem (t) 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the entire Israel-Hamas War is covered in Ongoing. Also I noticed this said "massacre" before being changed to "airstrike", good because it would be POV to call it a massacre when the actual article is titled an airstrike. JM2023 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for several reasons: what's stated above (which is debatable, imo; we blurbed the Bucha massacre, and sometimes casualty count/impact can override the ongoing item), the fact the article is currently a stub, and most importantly, the fact that for the moment it's Hamas' word versus the Israeli government's, and neither are exactly neutral actors; independent and reputable press verification, if possible, should be sought out before blurbing. The   Kip  18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Article is also now orange-tagged for POV, given assertions of responsibility versus reporting from reputable media. The   Kip  18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , any update on this vote, given that your concerns have mostly been addressed at the article's talk? AryKun (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll strike my NPOV concern and the stub concern, but the responsibility one (which we can’t control) is still existent to a degree. The   Kip  15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While not entirely overruling my original vote, I’m now leaning oppose - besides the still-disputed responsibility, there’s now even considerable doubt as to the actual death toll, with the original claim of 500+ being retracted and estimates ranging from as low as 50 to as high as 470. There’s just too much fog of war to post a blurb with any definitive information, besides “an explosion happened that killed some people.” The   Kip  16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. If it is an airstrike on the hospital and the purported death toll is as sources are reporting, it is certainly blurbable regardless of the ongoing status. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible tragedy but this sort of thing happens in war and the war has been posted in ongoing. On a side note we don't have a lot of hard facts from reliable sources. The numbers being quoted are almost entirely coming from Hamas or affiliated entities, none of which would pass WP:RS. I don't doubt that something dreadful has happened, but it is likely to be sometime before we get details from sources that can be trusted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait (leaning oppose) for reasons mentioned above. Covered in ongoing and it's not entirely clear who is responsible at the moment. This tragedy just happened and there are already unverified reports that it may have been a failed Hamas rocket (which is, imho, no more reliable than Hamas officials reporting it was an Israeli airstrike). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for alt-blurb. Given the significance of media coverage and resulting events this is very much ITN-worthy. It's not even clear what the death count is at the moment, however, that's secondary to the tertiary events that unfolded immediately after the incident which are still unfolding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as per Lukt64, this is a big number. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - we posted the Bucha massacre, which saw similar body counts, and although it may be accounted via ongoing, there are always certain stories such as the Crimean bridge explosion and the like that are unique/major enough to warrant a blurb, regardless if the parent article is in ongoing. I would wait for more sources to come out and for the article to be expanded however. — Knightof  theswords  18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * seems the Bucha rationale is now moot due to Israeli and US intelligence findings. JM2023 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - HUGE incident, despite the war being in ongoing already, this war crime against humanity deserves a blurb CR-1-AB (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't even know who did it yet. Some now allege it was a Hamas rocket. You shouldn't jump to conclusions and call it a crime against humanity to support significance. Also "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" exist but not "war crimes against humanity". JM2023 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The scale of this atrocity makes it important to include. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:84CE:346A:7D23:D4F5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait: Initial reports of casualties and perpetrator are still uncertain. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The real authorship of this execrable massacre is not confirmed by the RS sources, which only include the communiqué of the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I don't think it’s comparable to the Bucha massacre either in a war context, nor in an operational or significant context. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, however unfortunate it may be, lines have often been drawn by nations between the civilian bombing campaigns of total war and the personal door-to-door massacres of genocidal actors. And no wars are being started over this. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re totally right. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Truly shocking to read, RIP to all those poor people - a war crime and a crime against humanity. Similar has also been posted relating to the Russo-Ukraine war. AnthonyIreland 19:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * do you have additional comments now that it has come out that both US and Israeli intelligence indicates with strong likelihood that it was a Palestinian missile? JM2023 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Israel is now formally denying responsibility. They are claiming that the Palestinians blew up the hospital, probably by accident, while using it as a launch site for their own missiles aimed at Israel's civilian population centers. I reaffirm my oppose. But if this is posted, the currently written blurb assigning blame to Israel cannot be used. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Russians denyed the Bucha massacre but that wasn't enough for it not to be included in ITN section at the time. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel is probably more credible than Russia. Bucha's responsibility probably had more sources than Hamas press releases. JM2023 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Israelies have long long records of violating human rights records and using internationally prohibited weapons like white phosphorus and lying. So it's definitely not "more credible" than Russia. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In a competition between Hamas and Israel in terms of human right violations and lying, I think I choose Israel as the more credible source. For various obvious reasons. Also those sources are pretty one-sided, ignoring Palestinian actions. You have to look at the two sides of the war if it's a credibility contest. A few examples of various allegations is not systematic enough of an analysis to show Israel lies on the level of Russia. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Bucha massacre has been independently investigated by international authorities who have formally accused Russia of the atrocity. I think there is a pretty strong consensus within the community that both Hamas and the Russian government are not reliable sources on any matter of controversy. To be sure the Israelis are not saints. But when they have screwed up in the past, they have typically owned their mistakes. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they never had. Drop it already. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One example is not enough. JM2023 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They mean when they screw up in their press releases and stuff, not human rights which is pretty much universally known <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * even besides the POV issue, the currently written blurb also has several typographic errors ("israel airstrike" instead of "an Israeli airstrike") JM2023 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment In conjunction with the disputed responsibility and NPOV edits on the article, I've proposed a more neutral altblurb for now The   Kip  20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Covered in ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Respectful oppose Part of the reason for having an ongoing section is to avoid the inevitable tit-for-tat "we posted this attack so why can't we post that attack". Bucha was by far the exception rather than the norm. Curbon7 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view for ITN purposes, where this differs from Bucha is that this strike was directly part of the war covered by ongoing, whereas Bucha was not. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per KoTS. Not sure how Bucha clears our bar but this doesn't. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bucha was a personal purposeful massacre by an enemy country invading another -- this, according to US intelligence, was a Palestinian failure. totally different. JM2023 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's an ongoing event and it's worthy of coverage in international news. Rager7 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Death toll is comparable to the Bucha massacre which we posted. Very notable event no matter who perpetrated it (The Guardian says the explosion was too large to have been Hamas), though it's probably best to wait and see if there will be more clarity on that in the coming days. Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While people may compare the death toll, the significance in terms of what the event actually was is not comparable (not to imply that you did so). Bucha featured indiscriminate shooting of civilians and torture-murders of civilians including minors. There is a meaningful difference of significance. JM2023 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll is significant, and the explosion has recent a noteworthy amount of attention as a standalone event despite it being part of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. TheInevitables (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment (partial support). While the attack is covered in the main article, this is shocking and the death toll is very high (per nom), but the attacker is still unknown. Also, I would support the alt blurb per WP:NPOV, as the original blurb says that Israel launched the airstrike, which is currently disputed. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support posting, but Strong Oppose attributing the attack to anyone until we know more. The first suggested blurb inappropriately assigns blame. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First and foremost, because several pivotal info and still unknown. Who is responsible for the attack? How many people really died? We need to be responsible here, to avoid becoming a misinformation tool. We are not a news ticker, so why the rush? Let's wait until things get clear and then discuss if this is newsworthy.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The details of the incident are disputed and we have the overall war as an ongoing entry. Note that this is a contentious topic and so we are required to "err on the side of caution". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would like to make it clear that I wrote the blurb when the blame was being put on Israel, and that I will not be voicing my opinion on who is wright or who is wrong in the ongoing conflict. FatCat96 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you should modify the original blurb. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. FatCat96 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support one of the altblurbs. While there is still some confusion about the cause of the explosion (though it seems highly unlikely that a Palestinian rocket could do such damage), the high death toll, the singular nature of the event, and the location being a hospital pushes it above the threshold to get something that is usually covered by an ongoing item into a new blurb. This is similar to how the Bucha massacre, which had a similar reported death toll was blurbed despite it being covered by an ongoing entry. For comparison and, while not covered by an ongoing item, the 2015 Kunduz hospital airstrike was blurbed with around 40 deaths. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reason I opposed most Ukraine-Russia proposals: covered by ongoing. The rationale of a massacre is not without ground but unless an actor can be definitively attributed for this I remain opposed. Gotitbro (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the party actually responsible for the airstrike is confirmed. After that, consider my vote as a weak support. S5A-0043 Talk 03:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the main blurb. Since our blurb doesn't assign responsibility to anyone, I don't see why we need to wait to ascertain the party responsible. Likewise, the casualties have been widely reported.VR talk 06:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the determination of the responsible party changes the nature from being a mistaken explosion (Israel claim) to a massacre (Hamas claim). Gotitbro (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support war crime with immense death toll regardless of who did it; also, we are probably not going to get immediate clarity on the perpetrator as we did in Bucha, because Bucha wasn't being blockaded and carpet-bombed and thus had independent investigators who could go there. We did mention the hundreds dead from Hamas' attacks in the original blurb; the reason we didn't blurb each massacre separately is the same reason why we wouldn't blurb 5 different hospitals getting bombed individually. AryKun (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Issues with the article and the unknown nature of the attack makes it difficult to make a case to blurb. If the resulting fallout of this is significant enough then I would consider Supporting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but wait. Number of casualties is unclear, but the event on itself is significant enough, with multiple world leaders commenting on it, and it is all over the news. Blurb will probably need to be modified. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to support. Still think the blurb needs to be changed. kills at least 200 people might be incorrect.<span id="AdrianHObradors:1697707752128:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless we can say who was responsible, in which case Support. If we can't, then we need to include the broader context to avoid NPOV issues from readers making assumptions, similar to WP:CATPOV, and there isn't space for such broader context. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah if the perpretrator of the attack is found then I would Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom  Abo Yemen ✉  11:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait per Gotitbro. A combination of this being covered by ongoing and also not knowing who perpetrated the attack. If there is definitive evidence on who is responsible, I'd be willing to rethink ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, likely a couple days, as preliminary investigations are still ongoing, both on the perpetrator and the death toll. Then, support. I revoke my earlier stance. — <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:black">Melo</b><b style="color:#f2b611">fors</b> </b> TC</b> 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, covered by ongoing whoeveer turns out to have done it QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a very significant event even outside of the ongoing. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who did, for the news sake. The blurb is silent in this term. -- M h hossein   talk 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the main blurb. It's a significant event and made a huge amount of reactions worldwide. The article is also ready for this. Certainly newsworthy. -- M h hossein   talk 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Big thing indeed, but Covered by Ongoing, just like the siege and next big thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Bucha precedent as discussed above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bucha was well-established as being a Russian perpetration; Israeli and US intelligence say its much more likely a Palestinian action, not an Israeli one. This may change your conclusion. JM2023 (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how the fact that Bucha was perpetrated by Russia changes much <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because Russia was the invading country and Bucha was perpetrated against Ukrainian citizens on purpose, while Palestine apparently accidentally bombed its own citizens. That probably makes a significant difference. It's not that Bucha was specifically Russia or that this was specifically Palestine, it's that Bucha was against foreign citizens on purpose by an invading country whereas this was against one's own citizens apparently by accident and domestically. JM2023 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is likely to further erode Israel's ties with the Arab world. Synotia (moan) 08:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? US and Israeli intelligence strongly indicates it was a Palestinian bombing. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Palestine still trusts Palestine info, but on the other hand, well... <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, could you elaborate? JM2023 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Palestine is kinda part of the Arab world. I'm not sure if the Arab world trusts Palestine information, but maybe that's what Synotia meant. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, based on the observed pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas protests across the Arab world and even the Western world, it's an indication that the Arab world may stick to the Palestinian (very likely false) narrative and thus compromise Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if that gives significance to the explosion itself. JM2023 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Doesn't matter if we know who did it or not. The topic and article is sufficient enough to appear on ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Covered in ongoing; I'd caution against posting individual attacks - we'll enter a never-ending cycle of "we posted that so we should post this" Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kip. The large death count that previously established this event's separation from the ongoing is now in serious doubt. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant event within the context of the war, regardless of the several points of view regarding the facts. I'm also sure this won't get posted, so take this as a moral support. Bedivere (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What would your claim to this event's significance be? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least one hundred (as per the lowest figure presented by reputable sources) people died. How can that not be significant by any standards? Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a war, just 100 is not enough to put outside ongoing, not to mention the lowest estimate is 50 from the credible CNA (nonprofit) and the DNI also gave an upwards estimate of 300 <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as this incident is being widely covered in the international media. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support even as a controversey, this event has a sufficiently-wide coverage that it is not far less significant than the initial Hamas attack (nor is the deathtoll that different). Per Bucha Massacre above - for those who respond that this isn't covered by the same level of WP:RS, you can't expect it to. The conditions are different: not every war has the 'luxury' of a conflict in Europe, but certainly the amount of coverage is comparable to say the least --Abbad (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC).
 * it is not far less significant than the initial Hamas attack (nor is the deathtoll that different) that is entirely untrue. The Hamas attack was a terrorist attack where Hamas terrorists slaughtered thousands of Israelis in their own communities, including the beheading and burning of children in their homes, on the basis that they were Jewish. The death toll is far over 1000. This was a hospital bombing with most likely Palestinian blame and is likely an accident, and current estimates are as low as only 50 deaths. 20 times the number were personally killed in the initial terrorist attack by Hamas.
 * Also Per Bucha Massacre above as has been noted, the Bucha massacre was perpetrated by Russian invading soldiers on the ground against Ukranian civilians and involved torture murders of minors; this was a hospital bombing of likely Palestinian blame and may very well be an accident. JM2023 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the beheading of children reports had been dismissed as propaganda. Is there any evidence of this? We shouldn't be spreading propaganda by either side. Nfitz (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not according to the Independent or the Telegraph. JM2023 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's almost 2 weeks old, before the anti-Palestinian propaganda had been fact-checked. Why would you post such horrific prejudice User:JM2023? Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to also post the fact checks in question that proved the claims wrong, it's very probably that they simply do not know about the timeline rather than posted in bad faith. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's they'd double down after being politely called out, and then needing to use 2-week old references to make the point, suggests that at a minimum, it's very careless. Especially considering the considerable reporting about this propaganda in the media - over a week ago! a, b, c. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's now horrific prejudice to repeat reliable sources telling us that literal terrorists committed terrorist acts like beheading and burning children. You're saying I'm prejudiced against antisemitic genocidal terrorists? By the way, it's not been shown to be "propaganda" and it's not like this would be the first time children are beheaded and burned in an attack. Israeli investigators continue to announce such events. What has been questioned was a report by an Israeli journalist interviewing soldiers who said babies were killed; social media users conflated that with babies being beheaded. And anyway, It's uncalled for to call my statement "horrific propaganda" even if it wasn't true, since "burned and beheaded" is a small difference from "brutally butchered in an ISIS fashion" and "burned alive". The difference there would not be "horrific propaganda"; what is horrific is the evident brutal murders of children by Gaza terrorists. JM2023 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nfitz’s second link is a news source that directly claims that the beheading was false using reason that there has been no evidence, while I’m unsure about the Washington post one as I do not have access. It doesn’t disprove it, but it’s very in doubt.There are genociders and terrorism on both sides of the war. While it is no excuse, you cannot unilaterally confirm any side’s press releases until a secondary source has agreed.Also, both of the links you provided in your “Not according…” comment only said killed and not beheaded. The politifact article you sent was on the exact same story as your provided ones, the one repeated by US and Israeli officials. It’s not just social media users and I don’t see how you could arrive to this conclusion after reading these articles. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is too much uncertainty about the event, with some reports the death toll was as low as 50. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those "some reports" are individual analysis based on photos and videos available online and elsewhere, which are not comparable to official reports. -- M h hossein   talk 19:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the figure used to be misattributed to the center of naval analysis. There is still a sourced claim about an European official who reported the same figure. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blake Spendley is also still sourced. Blake Spendley is an intelligence operative at the CNA, which may be why it was also sourced to CNA (i.e., considering that person to be speaking for their organization). JM2023 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That falls under individual analysis based on photos and videos available online and elsewhere, it’s what open-source analysis means. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per . We have ongoing for a reason. Uneasy about the use of casualty figures when there is a war on. And Palestinian rockets hit Gaza all the time. This article would make a good poster child for the perils of current news reporting on Wikipedia; the signal to noise ratio is very low indeed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in India

 * Wait - article has not yet been updated with the case ruling ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The court found that it didn't have the power to change the various pieces of legislation and so that was a matter for legislators. So the status quo continues and there's no significant change. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Added altblurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't we just reject a story about the legal status of same-sex marriage in another country? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mauritius SSM was rejected because not only was the blurb outright false, it wasn't a major first in anything, so it didnt meet notability benchmarks. JM2023 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even SSM in Mauritus - it was the legalization of same-sex sexual relations, which had already been legalized in I believe at least nine African countries (not even counting those where it wasn't illegal in the first place). The   Kip  18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we just rejected Mauritius SSM because it wasn't a major first in anything. This is even less notable -- court decides to do nothing about it and tells politicians to do something instead. Not significant enough. Also the original blurb has multiple grammatical errors (at least 3 at first glance). JM2023 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Understandable proposal, considering that India has over a billion people in it.
 * But, mauritius Lukt64 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support upon improvements With having the first or second largest population, this is a significant effect. Even if maintains the status quo or not the first such country to deny rights, its large enough to be a major concern overall. --M asem (t) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it even "denying rights" though? seems like its just the court going "this right does not exist in the constitution". i.e. the right was denied by whoever wrote the constitution, and will be denied by parliament if it votes down a law. JM2023 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably yes, but I think that at a broad scale, denying equality in things like marriage and other rights to same sex couples (as well as other things broadly under the LGBTQ+ banner) is seen as an issue, comparable with the lack of women's rights in Middle Eastern countries, for example. and while the Court did say that the gov't should review policies to assure that while they can't grant marriages they can grant other benefits to same-sex couples, the articles I've read imply that this current Indian gov't is very much unlikely to follow those recommendations.
 * I would compare this to last year's Dobbs decision from the US SC that remove abortion rights, which also claimed it wasn't in the Constitution. M asem (t) 00:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But that overturned a prior decision. This is what I'm trying to get at. Was SSM a constitutional right in India before this decision, the same way abortion was in the US before Dobbs? It doesn't seem notable or significant to me if not. Like if the King of the KSA was asked and said "women actually need to be subject to these laws" but its just re-affirming something that is already the case, that is not significant. JM2023 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak support I can be convinced to flip my vote, but on first glance, although it doesn't change the status quo, it's the largest or second-largest nation on the planet - as such, the decision has at least some notable impact. The   Kip  18:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ruling right-wing government is anti-same-sex marriage and this is obviously not going to change that.  May have been blurbable had the outcome been the opposite. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Every time SSM is legalized it is almost invariably nominated here, and I have generally opposed over the last few years as these events have become routine. This is a fairly unusual case of the supreme court in the world's most populous democracy saying no. It is both unexpected and frankly newsworthy just by virtue of its defying the global trend in democratic societies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support mostly per Ad Orientem. It's considered commonplace for a nation to legalize same-sex marriage and this is unusual in that it's a more anachronistic ruling. Also, it's one of the most populous and thus most influential nations, so any ruling about same-sex marriage is therefore important. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 19:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder about that. Was SSM previously recognized by the indian SC as a fundamental right? Did this overturn a previous SC case that recognized SSM? If not, then there is nothing significant here. If another abortion case came to the SCOTUS and they ruled in a way that didn't overturn any of their prior major abortion decisions, that would not be significant. If the SC is just telling us what's in the Indian constitution without contradicting a previous decision of itself, that seems like it's not significant. What may be significant is if the Parliament of India passed a law banning SSM. JM2023 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view it's important for two reasons:
 * It confirms the SC can merely interpret laws. If the SCOTUS were to pass a ruling reaffirming, for example, judicial review in the United States, I'd consider that significant, even it's merely supporting the status quo.
 * The government will, if nothing else, set up a panel to consider LGBTIA+ rights. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This decision merely maintains the status quo and doesn't change much. TheInevitables (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this decision doesn't change anything. If India legalizes gay marriage, I will support it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per above, nothing changes. I would support if it was legalized, but the status quo doesn't seem newsworthy to me here. DecafPotato (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. They simply ruled that they did not have the right to dictate this. Though IMO if the legislature went against it then we should post that. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with Masem, the size of the population, and therefore subsequent coverage makes this notable and ITN-worthy. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Ad Orientem; SSM cases have become more prevalent in recent years, however, its rare to see one that rejects the move. Opposing just because "the status quo" would be like not posting a re-election because it's technically the "status quo;" it will still have major ramifications in the years to come. — Knightof  theswords  00:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a rejection, it boils down to "this does not fall under our jurisdiction as it is not mentioned in the constitution". You wouldn't like any supreme court to create a new rule that has no mention at all in the existing laws and articles. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The original blurb also said that they found that no kind of marriage was under their jurisdiction. The court instead accepted the government's offer to set up a panel to consider granting more legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. I've created alt-blurb II, though I doubt many people would see it and I do not support this being ITN. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per consensus that SSM legalization is functionally ITN/R; I see no reason the negative not be the case, especially given the populations affected This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not a rejection, it’s an “in-progress”. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point to this consensus anywhere? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't a change in law, nor is a change in law being blocked. This is merely a clarification. This is far too trivial to post & I'm baffled at the length of this discussion. It shouldn't even have been nominated. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose To me, the story would have been if it had been legalized. "Not our jurisdiction" doesn't seem noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * Oppose
 * This isnt a civil war, its a war between the 2 largest nations in Europe. Its a bigger deal, at least geopolitically, than any African wars for now. Lukt64 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close Here we go again. This war is still ongoing and raging on. Battles around Avdiivka have intensified greatly. We had this exact discussion a few months ago. TwistedAxe   [contact]  13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - article is still being updated and war is still very much going on ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose there is still news coverage near daily of events in this conflict, in contrast to far less significant coverage of events in the Sudan one. --M asem (t) 14:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Tweedale

 * Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Article looks decent enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tim Wallis

 * Oppose. Needs more citations as several sections in the article are unsourced. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen Petra Basacopol

 * Thank you, Dahn, I added you as updater. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We added detail and references, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discography/works mostly unreferenced (the 4 I spot checked were not under the overarching reference).  Spencer T• C 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All work are referenced on top of the section, just above the table. (A few works have additional information, and then also additional ref.) - Will check for the recordings. I thought that these numbers - like ISBN - are an indication they exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I reworked the recordings. I used one ref that I'd not normally use because it has a precise year (1983) where the other ref for the same recording has only "1980s". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geri M. Joseph

 * Posted Stephen 03:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hatto Beyerle

 * Posted Stephen 03:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roland Griffiths

 * Support Article is a bit short but it's sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

(Attention Needed for Blurb discussion) (Posted as RD) RD/blurb: Martti Ahtisaari

 * Blurb Head of state and Nobel laureate who seems comparable with Jimmy Carter. As an Elder, he seems to meet Mandela standard.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready There are some paragraphs with no references. The article also lacks citations for most of the awards and honours. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don't believe in the legitimacy of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to someone who once said "Belgrade will be just like this tabletop. We'll start the bombing of Belgrade immediately.", so it's definitely not a factor of notability in this case. Apart from it, he was just a mediocre Finnish president, not comparable in any way to Urho Kekkonen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The authenticity of that quote seems debatable. Be that as it may, the person on the other side of the table was Slobodan Milošević and ITN blurbed his death. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Milošević on the other side of the table is not a justification for a threat involving destruction. That’s not the language one should expect from a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD pending improvements as noted by IP. Neutral on blurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb even after looking at WP:ITNRDBLURB and judging based on those guidelines, this is still not a notable enough death in my opinion. JM2023 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article needs some sourcing. Support blurb Article in good shape, he's a Nobel laureate and former head of state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb after BangJan1999 hatted my previous vote and the ensuing discussion. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, his death has close-to-no coverage in the English-language media (for instance, the BBC has not even published a news article that he died by the time of writing this post). It seems like his death isn’t even a major news in Finland, judging by the English-language content published by the Finnish media. Secondly, he was just a mediocre Finnish president, who cannot be compared in virtually any way to his predecessors Paasikivi and Kekkonen. Thirdly, the Nobel Peace Prize like the Nobel Prize in Literature is too controversial and politicised to be considered a notable achievement that qualifies someone for a blurb (almost a half of Nobel Peace Prize is about criticism of the award).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I heard a BBC bulletin about this myself on the Six O'Clock News today. And it's easy to find coverage in other major media including Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, Helsinki Times and many more.  All such coverage seems quite respectful and so KS's repeated objections seem to be false or fringe. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think "false" and "fringe" are strong words for something that you don't agree with. What you're referring to is a minor coverage that prevents us from going beyond a one-sentence update on his death. Just for comparison, the deaths of Italy's Berlusconi and Napolitano, which got a blurb earlier this year, are documented in stand-alone articles (see Death and state funeral of Silvio Berlusconi and Death and state funeral of Giorgio Napolitano), and the Italian government even declared a national day of mourning for each of them. That's clearly not the case with Ahtisaari.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * false and fringe
 * Must we remind you again that ITN’s procedures, voting, etc are governed by consensus and reason, rather than what Andrew Davidson feels they should be? Shame on you, yet again. The   Kip  14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality due to uncited material. Weak oppose blurb due to some of the concerns expressed by Kiril above. The   Kip  16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This has, at best, a single-sentence update that wouldn't be redundant to the blurb: the 2021 Alzheimer's/retirement announcement. Without an announcement of the cause of death (at least not that I've found in English sources; I haven't attempted machine translation from Finnish ones), its relevance is debatable - I mean, we can guess that he died of complications of Alzheimer's, and our article as it stands implies it, but we don't know that.  And we really can't post a blurb saying "Ahtisaari died at 86", linking to an article that doesn't say anything more about it than "On 16 October 2023, it was announced that Ahtisaari had died at the age of 86."  Oppose blurb, insufficient update. —Cryptic 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Nobel prize winner, former head of state. We blurbed Gorbachev and Jiang Zemin. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

support blurb very notable figure in modern european political history and also (former) head of state. One may add the former head of state of the newest nato state and a busybody around said affairs leading up to it. (not being a tinfoil hat)37.252.95.226 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - the death was not notable enough, per my interpretation of WP:ITNRDBLURB, and some of Kiril's argument above ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's ready to be posted on RD. For example, there are only three inline references in the long section on "Youth and early career", and the last paragraph in that section is completely uncited. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - I haven't seen any news of his death on my diversified newsfeed or even ever heard of him except here. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle, weak oppose on quality we've been blurbing a lot of heads of state deaths as of late, and we've probably blurbed too many, but this is the wrong place to start. How many heads of state have won a Nobel Peace Prize?  That demonstrates the regional and international impact we look for when blurbing heads of state of minor nations.  As such, I see this as a clear and obvious blurb.  However, there's a few paragraphs that are uncited.  I don't see that as a huge barrier because it's the least important stuff in the article that are uncited, but that should probably be taken care of before posting. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on quality Article quality improved; good work. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Not notable enough IMO. Relatively little coverage. Nigej (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I've been working on Ahtisaari's article and I think it's ready to be posted at least in RD, as there is no clear consensus for a blurb. Please take a look at it, on quality issues:          . _-_Alsor (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * References look much better. I think this is ready to go. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state. I'm positive we'll blurb Carter, we blurbed Mandela, de Klerk, Shimon Peres, Gorbechev and Tutu. Article also looks good so quality shouldn't be an issue. --2601:249:8E00:420:E491:206B:5172:51D8 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing : 2023 Sudan War (Timeline)
Strong Oppose - Ongoing is for items that continuously generate news-worthy blurbs. The War in Sudan has been getting very little media coverage, barely any more than multiple other African civil wars. Ongoing isn't an armed conflict ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose and Snowclose per user:Stephen down in the removal discussion: Removed only minor updates have been made to the article since this was nominated for removal a week ago. He then told you specifically when you demanded it be reinstated: You may want to read WP:ONGOING before you make your demands. JM2023 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PW. Yhe conflict may be ongoing, but the impact is not covered in any great coverage in the media. --M asem (t) 14:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close I weakly supported keeping it, but consensus + guidelines dictated its removal and that’s not gonna suddenly change in a day. Sour grapes don’t constitute a valid reason for reinstatement. The   Kip  16:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: M. S. Gill

 * Oppose three unsourced (or lacking inline citations) paragraphs out of five total in Early Life and Career, the bulk of the article. JM2023 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @JM2023 -- I added the refs for the paragraphs in question. Did not have time to make any text updates. But, have a look. Can help with some edits tomorrow if needed. Ktin (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can anyone Please take a look now ?It appears okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Sourcing now seems to be there. --M asem (t) 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Ecuadorian general election

 * Weak Support quite table-centric for the second round, only one sentence of prose in the lede about the second round, only one sentence of prose in the second round aftermath section, and the campaign section has one sentence; but per WP:ITNCRIT I think that might be OK if we consider the event to be the entire election and not just its results. Overall sourcing looks fine. Also Comment blurb has a grammatical error: should be "Noba is elected". JM2023 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ITN/R as both general election and change of chief executive This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've added some more info in the lead and aftermath section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Has enough prose. Well cited. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 17:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Polish parliamentary election

 * Comment. Official results should be in somewhere around noon Tuesday CEST. The opposition parties will likely be able to independently form the government. Finally. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support besides lede, background, and electoral system, has almost no prose, almost all tables. Also Comment the 2023 Polish parliamentary election should be bolded. JM2023 (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Hugely significant. Von der Leyen will be breaking out the special occasion wine tonight. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Subsequent comment: Added alt blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but Oppose altburb per WP:POV. The article requires some work before posting, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait and Oppose 1st blurb. It's not POV to claim PiS lost; if the trend is confirmed they lost and resoundingly so. The big winners are Third Way and Civic Coalition, the big losers are Confederation and Law and Justice. We should wait until votes are counted and confirmation of the "democratic opposition" government. Added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We post election results, not speculations based on personal wishes. How do you determine who's opposition? What if a political party of the so-called "opposition" forms a government with PiS? We should wait until the final results come in and post a blurb including the party that won the most seats (whether they'll form a government or not is completely irrelevant).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because in this instance this was already established pre-election. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too much WP:CRYSTAL based on exit polls and speculation about possible coalitions. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A variant of the first blurb (PiS most votes and most seats, but loses their majority) that sticks to the facts should be used until coaliton negoations conclude. It's too early to be declaring winners or losers in wikivoice. Iffy★Chat -- 10:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb, because it states the facts, the case is clear by now; PiS is unable to form gvt. No speculation, immense significance for EU. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for Alternative blurb. As was said, this has immense significance for EU, as well as Poland. The opposition parties have long held that PiS winning again would be the end of direct democracy. This election is seen by approximately half of Poles as that type of election, and thus hugely significant for the social and political climate of Poland. This no longer suffers WP:CRYSTAL considerations and should be added. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready Pretty close to zero prose covering the results. Once the results are clear and the article is updated with an appropriate summary, we can post. But we are not there either in terms of all the results or article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the altblurbs clearly contain original research. The opposition parties that allegedly won the majority of seats didn’t form a united opposition coalition but instead run independently, and there’s really no need to regress from an encyclopaedic to a journalistic style and report something in a suggestive manner. Only the original blurb makes sense and is in accordance with the blurbs on elections posted in the past (PiS will probably win most seats but will likely fail to form a government. That’s exactly what the original blurb tells.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is not ready, but, frankly, I don't mind. Basically because, in the context of Polish politics, I find it much more noticeable when those results materialize with Donald (the better one) Tusk becoming Prime Minister, which seems very probable. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for Alternative blurb best description for the outcome in my opinion Braganza (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, seat count is not out yet. Supporting the original blurb as altblurb1 has NPOV issues. No prose regarding reactions or aftermath, nor conduct during election as is usually typical. I'll adjust to support when issues are resolved. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note full results are available as of right now. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good. I think the original blurb is best. We best not speculate as to who will form a government, even if it seems highly likely that Tusk will lead a coalition. PiS will probably get the first shot anyway since it's up to Duda to pick the first prime ministerial candidate. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Currently there are 7 support, versus 1 wait 1 oppose 1 not ready. The considerations of the 'wait' and 'not ready' were about final results, which are in. Hence those should be counted as null and/or support. This seems to have enough support consensus at this point to post. There are 1 oppose alt blurb, 1 oppose 1st blurb, 3 support 1st blurb, 3 support alt blurb. Consensus to post is clear, consensus for which blurb is not. However, I'm willing to change my support for alt blurb to whatever will result in posting the article. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Ambivalent about which blurb should be posted. It seems rather misleading to suggest that PiS "won" the election when every RS is reporting that they "are on course to be ousted", "seem set to be ousted", etc. I could support original blurb, but only if we post another blurb if/when Tusk forms his coalition government as expected. (We did the same thing after the 2017 New Zealand general election; first blurb on September 25 said "the National Party wins plurality" and the second blurb on October 20 said "Jacinda Ardern becomes PM after forming Labour–NZ First coalition".) Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Covered by ITN/R, and the article has enough prose other than the tables to provide context. No opinion on which blurb to choose. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, ambivalent on blurb but I lean ALT1 - the biggest implication of this election is the opposition winning a majority. The   Kip  03:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for Alternative blurb. It is misleading to say United Right won the election when they don't have a majority of seats --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing from wait to support given results are in and added altblurb3 in order to reach a compromise and reflect WP:RS without WP:CRYSTALBALL. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Update comment on consensus status: Currently there are 12 support, versus 1 oppose 1 not ready. There are 1 oppose alt blurb, 1 oppose 1st blurb, 3 support 1st blurb, 4 support alt blurb, 1 support 3rd blurb. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Support the original blurb. So far that's all we know. Would support an update after a govenment wins a vote of confidence (probably around 26th December). I think the original "Oppose" votes reasons have already been resolved so this should be posted. Psubrat2000 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I still oppose the word "win" and the original blurb. They haven't won anything other than a plurality of votes. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment So no one is going to post this because of a disagreement over a blurb? Wikipedia's ITN needs to address its own limitations and have some sort of standardization. The gaming of it is too easy, the consensus building is unrefined and scattered, and it doesn't live up to the name "In the News". Should be called something completely different that represents the chaotic consensus building, such as "Consensus News" or something. 4 support for the Ecuadorian election receives an immediate posting, while 12 to 1 support for this election does not because of disagreement over a blurb. Which means that anyone can offer a variety of blurbs in order to split consensus on that part and prevent an article from being posted. How the admins do not see (or do not act to remedy) that this is a major failing of the system is beyond me. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted alt 1 Stephen 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Suzanne Somers

 * Oppose. Per nom. There are multiple issues with the article. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the late reply. Yes, the article looks much better now. Changing to Support. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 08:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose article has a giant WP:TONE tag at the top. Support apparently the issues have been resolved and it's not stale yet. JM2023 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The tone tag issues have been addressed and the filmography is better sourced now than the vast majority of similar articles. I think this can be posted now.  Could you reconsider your votes? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Too many cn 's remaining. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An IP editor just bombed the article with cn tags on every single line that didn't have an ending citation in . Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all remaining issue tags and remarked this candidate as ready. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lance Armstrong

 * Comment: Needs referencing work.  Spencer T• C 04:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Dariush Mehrjui

 * Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Minor fixes to nom: Added RD and removed ITNR (which this is not). As for blurb would like to see more info on the nature of the crime before commenting. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality at the very least. There's an unsourced paragraph in the career section, an unsourced statement in the Cinematic style and legacy section, the filmography is wholly unsourced, and the awards section also needs more refs. Also the infobox includes his date of birth, that he has 3 children and that he has had a previous spouse that he divorced, but this isn't sourced anywhere in the prose. Additionally I'm not 100% certain on the reliability of all of the sources, at the very least there's one statement sourced to IMDb which is definitely unreliable. This needs a good amount of work to be ready for RD, and some more work on his legacy and impact would be optimal if we want to blurb it. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RD only, but oppose on quality I'm really not seeing a lot of justification here for a blurb, given how little is known around the deaths beyond having been murdered. The article is missing sourcing on the film list and a handful of statements throughout the article. Also, not thrilled how much is sourced to ref #5 there, and makes me a bit concerned if a copyvio check should be made. --M asem (t) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality per above, Oppose blurb on notability because there is no way the murder of a single B-list director is world news. JM2023 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Guardian calls him prominent, Iran's culture minister also hails him . Kirill C1 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * we didn't even blurb Dianne Feinstein. Prominent people die every day, hence RD. The bar has to be higher than you propose or else ITN becomes an obituary. JM2023 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb on Notability, Oppose RD on Quality This is simply not enough to be a blurb. As for RD, the article has a lack of reliable sources. TheInevitables (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. It is shocking to see famous film director be murdered in Iran. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, but what we seem to know is simply that he and his wife were likely murdered, and that's it. No named suspects, no motives, etc. We hardly are providing any significant information on the death to make the blurb necessary. M asem (t) 21:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural support for RD but oppose blurb, per the recent consensus in favor of restricting RDBs and my own opinion that it should be restricted to heads of state/government of major powers with very narrow exceptions This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be an RfC in response to that consensus we found in order to actually change what it says in the guidelines but I don't know what I'm doing most of the time so I'll leave it to someone else for now. In the meantime this blurb can be opposed on notability grounds anyway through current standards. JM2023 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When did we have consensus on a change to death blurbs? Surely you don't mean the one that's still on the talk page.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Last I saw of it, my understanding was that it looked as though most people were in favour of changing ITNRDBLURB to match ITN standards so that the death itself must be notable, and that a notable life is never necessarily a notable death. Unless it's a different one now. I am talking about the discussion started by Chaotic Enby in response to my comment under an RD blurb discussion for a death a few weeks ago. Even that discussion, despite not having changed the words of the rules, would seem to indicate most people have expressed higher standards for ITNRDBLURB notability by even current guidelines than what people often propose. JM2023 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominators note: First, its been a while since I've edited, so I'm a bit rusty. Its looking more and more like this was a politically motivated murder, and may become a major news story for broader reasons. There's online chatter comparing it to a series of political murders in the 1990s, allegedly involving the Minister of Intelligence- Chain murders of Iran. I suggest giving it a day or two before rejecting based on standards of quality. I wish I had more time to work on the article myself. The murders seem to have been particularly brutal, its very disturbing. And there are four suspects in custody. I honestly don't know, is www.ncr-iran.org a reliable source?98.225.20.168 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Piper Laurie

 * Support looks well sourced Lukt64 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks solid. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet "Television" and "Audio dramas" subsections are without source and I've added a cn tag in the last line of "Career" section. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97 I resolved most of these issues, but there are still some TV works unsourced. Kacamata!  Dimmi!!! 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose None of the five television credits I spot-checked were on the bulk citation provided.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @, : There's one outlier, but the sourcing issues have been addressed. Would you mind taking another look? gobonobo  + c 11:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gobonobo seems good to me. Thanks for your work! I'm supporting this nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Issued Id'd by GCG appear to have been fixed, ready to go. --M asem (t) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gembong Warsono

 * seems well sourced, i support. Lukt64 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 New Zealand general election

 * Support article looks excessively long which makes it a bit dense, IMHO. But the most important parts seem to have sufficient prose and the content is sourced.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support defeat of a major Zero-COVID pandemic-era and Maori Power government and transition from leftism to rightism, has a good enough article. JM2023 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Question - do we usually make two separate posts for the changing of the legislature and then the changing of the Prime Minister? Because if so, we shouldn't, and instead should wait until the Prime Minister is chosen before posting this. Otherwise, we should post this and update the Blurb once the Prime Minister is chosen. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the above link to WP:ITN/R:
 * Hopefully that answers the question. JM2023 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I.. think so? It seems we will not post a change in prime minister, then? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the guideline is saying that the fact we have posted the general election results means we will not post the PM's appointment, and that general elections take precedence over PM appointments and presidential inaugurations that result from them, which is why they the elections are posted when they occur. JM2023 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks to be of good quality. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this, . The editor who, over the last few weeks, has added the most prose to this article was and he was missing from the credits. I've added him. Would you please be so kind and issue a credit? Note that because this seems to be restricted to adding five contributors, I deleted one of the others (so that Andykatib shows).  Schwede  66  00:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, no problem. Stephen 01:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, and . Andykatib (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add my thanks as well. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Australian referendum

 * Support Alt1. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 10:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support DaddySpaghetti (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant aspect of Indigenous Australian history. I prefer the original blurb as alt blurb 1 fails to mention constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians which is one of the tenets of the referendum, and alt blurb 2 is too wordy for a blurb. Also see History wars and Indigenous Australian self-determination which lead to this. Gotitbro (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel like it's better to be succinct, the referendum has been referred to as the Voice referendum and that's what coverage has been about. The recognition bit is only a small chunk of the proposed amendment, which is contained within the failed Voice amendment. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One of my issues with the original blurb is that it could be interpreted as two separate proposals being voted down; we would need to reword it to avoid that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A rewording might be required and I would get behind it but a mere listing that Indigenous Voice to Parliament failed to be added to the Australian Constitution will be meaningless to most non-AU readers.
 * The blurb at the very least needs to explain what was voted on (as we have done for past referendums that have been posted here on ITN). Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * well the blurb helpfully comes with a link to that article which will be great to inform readers. Perhaps "Indigenous-only federal legislative body" or something could be added before it though. JM2023 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Had the motion succeeded it would be more newsworthy for Wikipedia, but as is there is no change in circumstance 675930s (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt 1 - I think the Voice to Parliament should be in the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Alt3 (but I've added Alt4 to add one more word as to make it very succinct but clear what was going on). --M asem (t) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt III I've also added one word, "pictured", and that photo contains the "missing" relevant words. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 - Helpful to have the additional context- alt I summarizes it best. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 major defeat of an indigenous power campaign and a major blow to the incumbent Labor government, good enough article JM2023 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No change so it's a non-event. The article is also poor quality as it seems very focussed on the ongoing campaign with lots of opinion polling and position statements which are now all moot.  And the tenses are wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Far too early. It's only just gone 9:00 am on a Sunday morning here in Australia. (The vote was just yesterday, on a Saturday.) A lot of Australians, those wanting to comment on this, won't be out of bed yet! I don't recognise any Australians in the contributors above. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above, nothing is changing. The widely divergent proposed blurbs here reflect what really happened. Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt were generated by the No campaign, so that in the end millions of voters had no idea what they were voting for or against. Many thought they knew, but there claims were often wrong. I might support a blurb precisely quoting the proposal, and that it was defeated. Anything else is original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's really original research is this comment of yours. Uncited and vague accusations of "misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt" against one side constitute WP:FORUM and MOS:WEASEL and are certainly not grounds to oppose an ITN submission. Anyway, as I said below, The failure of the Scottish independence referendum was posted back in 2014. JM2023 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My "accusations" aren't vague, and there are plenty of sources for such claims. Not in the Murdoch or Costello media though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are vague. You say Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (texbook MOS:WEASEL), provide absolutely 0 examples at all, and now you just say there are plenty of sources (more MOS:WEASEL) despite not citing a single one this time either. And none of your new comment addresses the WP:FORUM concerns, or how your oppose has nothing to do with the article's quality or notability but instead with off-topic vague allegations against one side's campaign, thereby breaking fundamental ITN guidelines. And what's with the random off-topic potshot at Murdoch [and] Costello media? and you've made a formatting error here, talking to me but replying to your own comment. (fixed) You've been here since 2009, you've had a civility restriction imposed on you from ANI, really you shouldn't be doing this and should know better. JM2023 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's right. The topic is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which you commented on in a forum-like way with off-topic allegations which broke ITN guidelines, so I pointed that out alongside pointing out why you should know better than this. I believe it's helpful and within bounds of topicality and civility to point out when other editors stray off-topic and break guidelines in the name of opposition to a blurb. Such callouts are regular and help ITN function properly. We should go back to discussing the topical blurb within guidelines, without weasel words or unsourced off-topic claims. JM2023 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am STILL not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why I said what I said and why it doesn't matter whether you are or are not the topic. Please stop disrupting the project, especially considering your apparent history. Just discuss the proposed blurb without violating anything or going off-topic. Right now it looks like you're telling me to ignore your various aforementioned violations (including going off-topic) and stop telling you to stick to ITN rules when discussing this blurb.JM2023 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not telling you to do nor not do anything. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are telling me you are not the topic, the implication being you don't want me to talk about you, despite the fact that all i'm doing is pointing out the fact you were off-topic out the gate alongside some other violations which I point out in order to get you on topic. This looks like a case of WP:LASTWORD. JM2023 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would presume notability for constitutional referendums whether succesful or not. The very fact of its rejection has generation significant attention. The blurb is, as of writing, very matter of fact and additional commentary for how it exactly played out is better dealt within the article. Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose and Pull -- no change, so nonevent. I suggest pulling and waiting a bit, this was way too premature to post... We wouldn't post a story about an amendment failing to pass in the US or Canada, would we? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If Brexit failed I have no doubt it would have been posted. The failure of the Scottish independence referendum was posted back in 2014. I have very little doubt that if a constitutional amendment was put to popular vote in the US or Canada and failed that it would be posted. Even its failure would be a huge news story with results and maybe aftermath sections in their hypothetical articles and would be of sufficient notability and quality to post. JM2023 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is simply not in the same ball park as Brexit. The world had heard about Brexit for years before the poll. That's not the case here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again a formatting error. Talking to me but replying to someone else. (fixed) The world has heard about the IVtP for at least months, or else you wouldn't be able to allege Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (without examples or sources) being promoted in media outlets. And this also doesn't address the fact that we posted the Scottish independence referendum. JM2023 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - The rejection is also notable (and therefore widely reported by the press) and historic with, likely, political consequences in Australia.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell us about these likely political consequences. I haven't heard of any. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's quite a few. For a start, another referendum in the near future is unlikely, so republic for many years to come. That will have international implications. It may be pretty minor compared with Brexit but will the add to the worldwide perception that democracy is dysfunctional, especially in Asia. The electorates that returned teal candidates in the last election were solidly behind the yes vote, so their chances of reelection are enhanced, which in turn may continue the drift of the conservative side of politics away from the middle class and towards blue collar populism along the lines of what has occurred in the United States. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per JM2023. Just because something failed doesn't invalidate it from being posted. I believe if a Yes would be historic and the counts were close enough the referendum should be posted. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-Posting Support given the context. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mark Goddard

 * Comment The entire career section is unsourced. Novo Tape (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaakko Ihamuotila

 * Posted Stephen 21:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ronald M. Mottl

 * Support' Seems well sourced except for one or two statements. Enough prose. Novo Tape (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Issam Abdallah

 * Support -- seems decently sourced with enough prose. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 15:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Louise Glück

 * Comment. As she had multiple awards, including Nobel Prize, should we propose blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s clear that Nobel laureates enjoy a notability that few people have, a fact that we all share. But Glück having a blurb would open the pandora's box for other laureates to have a blurb as well, making Main Page impractical and useless. It’s a proposal that I fear its results. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * agree totally JM2023 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as not a key political leader or otherwise sufficiently important (as distinct from notable) for blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD, but Oppose a blurb. Well cited, no tags, comprehensive coverage of her life. The article would probably do better with more sections, though I'm nitpicking at this point. Concur with above that blurbing would open a Pandora's box.  Bremps  ...  04:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb The talk above of Pandora's box is nonsense. It seems that about one Nobel laureate dies per month on average but many or most of those don't get nominated here.  For example, Harry Markowitz died in June but didn't even get a nomination or RD.  And it was the same for K. Alex Müller who died in January.  But we blurbed Milan Kundera who didn't win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nobel Prize in Literature has very low regard in world literature circles (not to mention that it's considered a joke).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb. Not significant enough for blurb IMO. Nigej (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb primarily because she wasn't a household name that entered the literature education around the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb No question her writing was profound (hence the Nobel), but I'm not seeing a lot of what her writing has influenced, nor what she otherwise had done to be influential outside of that. Being a Nobel Laurate is not automatically a bar for inclusion as a blurb. The article otherwise looks good for Support RD. --M asem (t) 13:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per above. Few people want ITN to become an obituary. JM2023 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - 50,000+ pageviews the last 24 hrs suggests that this is no ordinary RD. The article was ready to go as is. So what’s the issue? ITN should consider doing “time sensitive” RD blurbs. Ie.: 4 hours/24hours/indefinitely. Just as a tip-of-the-cap to a noteworthy RD. Like the flag lowered to half-mast. Time sensitive blurbs should be at editor’s discretion to avoid all this endless wrangling. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least part of the issue is that the article provides less than a sentence of additional information about her death besides what would be in the blurb. WP:ITNUPDATE demands more, and there really isn't anything to put there to satisfy it. —Cryptic 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumably becuase the RD was posted, which is why it suddenly has so many views probably? What are the pageviews on the other RDs for context? For all we know, they could be double. And like Cryptic says, this doesn't even meet the guidelines for a blurb anyway. Also Just as a tip-of-the-cap to a noteworthy RD. Like the flag lowered to half-mast ITN is not an obituary or a way to pay tribute to dead people. JM2023 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For context, Milan Kundera received a death blurb with pageviews peaking at about 100k views. See here for a graph. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 20:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Psyche launch

 * Support It's an interesting mission to establish whether the asteroid is like the Earth's core but will take many years to produce results. And the use of a Hall-effect electric drive is significant too.  As it's in the news now, we should run it now. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Important and interesting mission, but I prefer this image File:PIA21499 - Artist's Concept of Psyche Spacecraft with Five-Panel Array.jpg. We can also add that it'll arrive in 2029. Artem.G (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Look, I know we love our space missions here, but can we just...not post every single new mission. If/when this mission returns important information we should post THAT news. But this feels like another one where we're posting every darn aspect about the mission with no real certainty of its impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are guidelines for space related stuff, I don't recall where, but I'm almost certain this launch does not meet the criteria. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the ITN/R criteria? While not *strictly* covering this event (note that it *would* cover its arrival!) it's important to note conflate ITN proposals and ITN/R. Most items that get posted to ITN are *not* covered by ITN/R; the latter merely makes its notability assumed, while for non-ITN/R proposals, the notability has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Simply applying the standards for ITN/R is kind of redundant, because were it covered under that... It'd be ITN/R already. (of course, this doesn't stop the opposite, from editors trying to debate the *lack of notability* for an item already under ITN/R...)
 * Since this is not a proposal to list this as ITN/R, those guidelines are thus pretty irrelevant. - Nottheking (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Because the blurb is about the launch, it might make sense to mention the launch rocket as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Launches to any Earth-escape trajectory are particularly rare, and always gather substantial news coverage. This is the third (and final) such launch this entire year, after ESA's JUICE in April, and ISRO's Aditya-L1 last month. JUICE was pretty swiftly posted, though Aditya-L1 was never proposed. (probably an effect of Anglocentric/systemic bias on the English Wikipedia)
 * I concur with DarkSide830 as well; there has to be a better image than that of a thruster that is merely similar to what's on it; either a picture of the whole spacecraft or of the launch itself tends to be in line with what gets posted for space missions. Mention of the carrier rocket isn't normally covered however, since the rocket in question isn't part of the story's significance. - Nottheking (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Garavito

 * Colombian serial killer  Bremps  ...  23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support; possibly the most monstrously evil human who ever lived, certainly the most monsterously evil serial killer I have ever known of, and I am disturbed to be reminded of him. JM2023 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy shit that was a dark read. Genuinely horrifying, may there be a fiery pit of hell waiting for this guy PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I either hadn't heard about Garavito before, or I'd vaguely heard of his atrocities at some point and forgotten his name. But when I read his Wikipedia article, an entirely different identifier sprang to mind: the Devil Incarnate. He truly was malevolence and depravity personified. Kurtis (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just looked at this and don't feel better for the experience. Respectable news organisations typically warn people when they are going to see something upsetting but RD just lists the link with no clue about what you're going to get.  This seems unacceptable in this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of biographies in RD depends on compliance with strict formal requirements, not on aspects of the content of these articles. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not make judgements on RD topics as long as they meet quality and notability guidelines. We've listed other terrorists and mass murderers in the RD line before. M asem (t) 17:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the editor above frequently and flagrantly disregards those guidelines in favor of personal opinion on how ITN should be. The   Kip  19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really see anything that cites Wikipedia policy about what should or shouldn't be posted. Furthermore, we don't really shy away from posting violent stuff on ITN- we posted the murder of Matthew Shepard, the Mekong River massacre, and the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing on three consecutive days just this month. If you believe the policy should be changed, that would be a different forum entirely.  Bremps  ...  04:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was just a major brainfart; those were all OTDs.  Bremps  ...  06:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think there should be some kind of warning on articles like these for extremely disturbing content, especially if we are going to put a link to it on a front page that is seen by millions of people every day. Some kind of viewer discretion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead's a bit misleading in that it gives the sensational initial sentence of the better part of two millennia in prison, but not that it was reduced to 40 and then 22 years, nor that he was up for parole this year... and those omissions are so glaring that I can't help but think they were there but were removed at some point, and I really don't have the stomach today to go trawling through the talk page and article history to see why. —Cryptic 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I’ll fully admit I haven’t fully scrolled through the article - it’s not an easy read and at times I simply couldn’t take it. Those sections I did read seemed well-cited though. Truly a monstrous human and we’re better off now that he’s dead. The   Kip  19:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This man was simply evil. I havent read sections of part of the article yet, but it seems somewhat decently sourced. Lukt64 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I guess, though I certainly regret doing anything close to reviewing this article. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support can't say I'm sad he's dead This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't think anyone here is. I probably wouldn't have nominated this if it had several CN tags, as that meant some poor soul at ITN would have to do research on this guy to confirm the worst details.  Bremps  ...  04:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support . I've quickly checked the entire article and I have to say that this article is well sourced and written. However, I've noticed that there's a 2 month old citation needed tag located at the "Public response" section, which sort of weakens my full support. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Midori No Sora I added a citation at the end of the paragraph, but didn't add the page numbers because Google Books decided to get difficult with me.  Bremps  ...  04:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The article structure already looks decent enough and I don't want to start an argument over a single tag. Changing to Support. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 04:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Not shedding any tears but he meets the guidelines and the article is in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Fixed the final citation needed tag, but it still needs a page number (Google Books apparently doesn't display page numbers).  Bremps  ...  04:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: D. J. Gokulakrishnan

 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, Step how is this posted in RD? There are no comment from other users? Also this is very short article? Fahads1982 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am an involved editor here, as the nominator, so take my words with that context. I personally do not see an issue with the article's length. At 2391 characters it definitely is not a stub. It is a start-class biography that meets minimums for homepage / RD. I personally have seen better biographies, but, what is there meets our homepage expectations. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a referenced start class article, nominated by an editor with a history of quality work who understands the requirements. Stephen 03:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rudolph Isley

 * Close, but a bit short There's a few uncited sources, but most of them appear to be obvious fixes, like linking to the Rock Hall class list or info on them, for example. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot more work needed on referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) North East Express

 * Oppose: No article specific to the event Prodrummer619 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above, plus death rate is not significant enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No article and minor impact. The   Kip  16:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable enough, doesn't have its own article. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not notable, doesn't even have an article, blurb doesn't even follow ITN format, it's even missing a bolded link. Also not even proposed in the right day section. JM2023 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JM2023. Also great blurb lol
 * Elisecars727 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cal Wilson

 * Oppose. The Television section needs more citations. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable enough. RIP Cal. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , please note that a recent death nomination is NOT about notability. It is only about article quality. Please read In the news/Recent deaths if you want to contribute to these discussions.  Schwede 66  23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved and ready to go IMO. Nigej (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose Article is mostly a list of "bullet points". It needs substantial rewriting before posting. Nigej (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This wikibio appears to have been revamped. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a IMDb source in the article, which is unreliable, and the lead needs work. Working on it. Tails   Wx  20:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was late to the party here. Yes I updated it :) Thank you for posting! ArleneHerman (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brendan Malone

 * Comment: Brendan_Malone needs references but otherwise pretty close.  Spencer T• C 20:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Source added. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support.  Spencer T• C 00:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2023 Israel–Hamas war

 * NB: article was retitled from October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict to 2023 Israel–Hamas war - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 02:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when said blurb has actually rolled off and if conflict is still ongoing. — Knightof  theswords  17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support only when the initial blurb rolls off, as was done with the Ukraine war in February 2022. Doesnt look like this will end that soon unfortunately. 176.10.137.234 (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this is already on other wikis, for example German wikipedia Lukt64 (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait For it to roll-off first, posting or canvassing for support now would only result in another nom then. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support/Wait per above. Good to go once blurb has rolled off. The   Kip  19:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for it to roll off, then support if the conflict is still ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support given that this is the second-largest non-state terrorist attack ever, that this is continuing right now, that new Hamas-decapitated and burned-alive bodies of Israeli children dehumanized as "settler colonialist oppressors" are being found constantly, and that hundreds of Israeli hostages including children are being threatened with livestreamed murder by Hamas; and also given that Israel has entirely blockaded Gaza indefinitely and Hamas terrorists are still fighting within Israeli territory. It's already on the German Wikipedia, it's about to roll off here. Far too continuous to have a simple blurb suffice. JM2023 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Lukt64 and JM2023.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once it rolls off. I suspect this will qualify for ongoing for some time ahead. Yakikaki (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;I know none of us have crystal balls, but I think it's clear that the fallout from this event will be a developing story for some time. Kurtis (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Obvious support as soon as it rolls off as a blurb. Though the link should be to 2023 Israel–Hamas war per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support currently an ongoing and important war that should be included in the "In the news" section. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, doesn't seem like it's going to roll off anytime soon. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above; it's not gonna end any time soon. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after rolloff per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as this is clearly going to continue for some time. GWA88 (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as this isn't going to end any time soon. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and above. This war has clearly gone out of control, and it looks like it will last for quite some time. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 11:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - Clear consensus for posting to Ongoing when the current ITN item rolls off the bottom. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: It appears that the war will never end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToadetteEdit (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once Blurb rolls off Situation is to the point where it like Ukraine. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Clearly still the biggest story in the world. Davey2116 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Guatemalan protests

 * I think this is probably significant enough for a blurb, but I couldn't find an article specifically about the ongoing protests. Perhaps someone should create one, and then link it in whichever blurb we choose? Kurtis (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Did we post the election result? If so, we can wait out and see if he actually is not inaugurated. Gotitbro (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gotitbro Yes, we did post the general election result. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't even have an article. JM2023 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now but if an article is created, we can circle back This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The oldest news item on ITN now is dated October 11th. News on these protests are now too old to go on ITN. Please re-nominate if there are new significant developments. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jorge Lavelli

 * Posted Stephen 02:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Feeney

 * Support. Article looks decent. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - well sourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is good. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel prize in economics

 * Oppose on quality Entire sections of the article are completely unsourced. I support this as a blurb in principle, but this needs a lot of work. TheInevitables (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Heads up I just took a look at this and noticed that it had been tag-bombed. FYI, this was done in this recent IP edit, which has no edit summary.  Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag-bombing, which doesn't make any difference to the fact that this article is woeful in its sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is some copyvio with her bio from the Harvard University website as well. Ktin (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Getting close. Only 4 tags now. If someone has a few cycles and would like to jump-in, now is the time. I will try to find some time as well. Proving to be difficult. Ktin (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Almost there A couple more citations and then it's good to go.  Schwede 66  00:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready for posting - I think I got the last four remaining CN tags. Schwinnspeed (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

(stale) Luxembourg general election

 * ssupport - ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Article currently contains very little prose. At the moment it is just a bunch of tables and two paragraphs explaining the electoral system. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Coalition talks ongoing: media (ex. ) reports that this is likely the end for the current Bettel coalition gvmt due to the collapse of the Greens, though Bettel seems to have indicated he would join a right-wing coalition gvmt. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would mention that the Bettel government has lost its majority in the blurb, that is the most important fact of this election.2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:2C98:387B:A549:4647 (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as the article’s almost entirely tables. The   Kip  13:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question – Do we usually describe a party's ideology in the blurb? Or should we remove "conservative" here? DecafPotato (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as elections are ITN/R. Proposed altblurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added Alt2. To my knowledge, we typically feature the winning[est] party in parliamentary election results. And I would shy away from discussing the government, because it could perhaps survive with a different composition. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of prose, but if more was added I'd support Alt2 ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, not enough prose. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The oldest news item on ITN now is dated October 11th. This election on October 8th is now too old to go on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Sudan war

 * Support, as there have been just small updates in the last week. Tone 08:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;The relevant articles may be a bit out of date, but there are definitely new developments happening on a daily basis in Sudan. Nevertheless, we don't currently have an ongoing entry for Syria, Libya, or Yemen, all of which are still mired in civil wars of their own. I'm leaning towards weakly supporting removal, but I want to make it known to anyone else participating in this discussion that the situation in the country is by no means "slowing down". Kurtis (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think its slowing down, but it has gotten to a point where Sudan is comparable to many other nations in civil wars that we aren't putting on ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal&mdash;The subsequent comments have persuaded me. I agree with adding a link to the timeline article. Kurtis (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Like the war in Ukraine, whose main article isn't getting a ton of new updates, but new content is generally added to the Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine articles, most updates surrounding the war in Sudan are being added to Timeline of the war in Sudan (2023) instead. I guess we could do an entry similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, like Sudan war (timeline) to make that more clear. DecafPotato (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (per @DecafPotato). While there aren't many updates to the article now, adding "(timeline)" seems more reasonable than removing it altogether. - MateoFrayo (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just the lack of updates that is my issue with the item, it's that it is not getting enough coverage to warrant an ongoing nomination. At this point I fail to see how the conflict is different than the Ethiopian Civil Conflict, Myanmar unrest PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * exactly JM2023 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal; support timeline proposal per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. Agree with the proposal of adding the timeline. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Being aware that there are updates on the timeline, these are very very trivial updates, and certainly without these all being in the news, in contrast to the Ukraine/Russia war. Taking it out of ongoing doesn't reflect that we're saying the war is over, but its presence in the news has significantly wanned. --M asem (t) 12:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per above, support adding the timeline akin to what we've done for Russia-Ukraine. The   Kip  19:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support looking at the page "| list of ongoing armed conflicts" there are multiple ongoing conflicts with similarly high death tolls that are NOT listed in the ITN ongoing section, such as the Burmese conflict and the Mexican conflict, and the Maghreb insurgency and Nigerian conflicts. So why list a Sudanese conflict that has largely abated? We just got rid of Nigerien crisis too. JM2023 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal Article not receiving sufficient threshold of new updates; per nom.  Spencer T• C 19:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed only minor updates have been made to the article since this was nominated for removal a week ago. Stephen 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That shouldnt be a reason for removal. Reinstate it. Lukt64 (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:ONGOING before you make your demands. Stephen 01:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Nigerien crisis

 * There have been some more updates compared to the Sudan war but eventually the coverage is going down. Tone 08:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;France is withdrawing its soldiers from the country, but otherwise, the status quo in Niger seems to be stable for the time being. Kurtis (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. The coup seems to have calmed down and major news site have stopped updating the current situation. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 14:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the last time this was nominated. The conflict appears to have stalemated/stabilized and coverage is decreasing. The   Kip  16:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The situation is deescalating, and coverage is decreasing. TheInevitables (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Wait, as French Forces have yet to completely withdraw all of their troops from the country (Which was one of the main issues related to the coup). Once they've completely pulled out, then it'll make sense for the 2023 Nigerien Crisis to be considered as no longer "ongoing". - MateoFrayo (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't keep ongoing topics just because the situation may still be open.. we need to make sure the topic is actually in the news an a daily-ish basis, and that's just not the case here. M asem (t) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Situation has simmered down and French troops have basicall withdrawn.Pyramids09 (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 09:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ted Schwinden

 * Support article looks in good shape and well-sourced. Tails   Wx  12:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: László Sólyom

 * Oppose Despite the article being without tags, there's several paragraphs without citations, including the "Biography" and "Presidential Election" sections. I might work on the referencing. Tails   Wx  15:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Impressive work, Alsoriano97! Now Support.  Tails   Wx  21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tails. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to the referencing problems, the extensive external links to his speeches in the body of the article are all apparently broken and would fail WP:EL anyway. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Much work still required to get it up to standard. Nigej (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Added citation needed tags to every paragraph needing one (I left the sentences for now). The "Relevant public events of President László Sólyom" and the "The three pillars of the presidency of László Sólyom" sections probably violate some organizational standard. I don't think we can get it up to standard in time.  Bremps  ...  04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tails Wx@Pawnkingthree@Nigej@Bremps I've been working this afternoon on Sólyom's article, expanding its content with the citation of reliable sources (although I had to use mainly from Hungary and Spain, but considerable as RS). Can you take a look? Thank you. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was beautiful. Change to a support vote. Shame it (probably) wasn't a big enough expansion for DYK as well.  Bremps  ...  21:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. It would be interesting if, with less haste, it could be expanded. But the truth is that I have not been able to find much more useful information about his presidency, especially. Thanks for your comment, btw! _-_Alsor (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Kelvin Kiptum marathon record

 * Support - I’m not sure it’s ITN/R, but this is one of the most prestigious records in athletics and not one I was expecting to be broken now, particularly outside Berlin.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - a big stride toward the sub 2 hour mark and a very important record in sports! 1779Days (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The (men's) marathon world record progression article still features Eliud Kipchoge. Kiptum is barely mentioned. Once, in a table, no source. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, wow, that is a huge improvement of the record! Of course, the articles need updates. --Tone 16:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - Kiptum's article is short but adequate, while the record article needs updating and the marathon article needs more prose. The   Kip  17:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - necessary improvements have been made. The   Kip  16:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Gigantic improvement on old record. If possible, can we still keep Gaza-Israel on top though? 2607:9880:2D28:108:8CCB:4DA1:DB7C:5EDB (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * no we go by date not by what people think is more important. And we do that so we don’t get in to arguments about what is more important. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This should absolutely be on the front page, but the articles need work. I can see they're all being worked on right now. e.b. (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * support but I’d include something like becoming the first person to run a marathon in under 2:01. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the Kiptum article is updated (currently says that the record is pending ratification). And this comes just two weeks after the women's marathon world record was broken by Tigst Assefa! Funcrunch (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow-up after a bit of research: It took nearly four months to ratify the previous world record in this category, so we shouldn't hold up the ITN post on that basis. I also note that we didn't include any "pending" qualifiers in Tigst's article when she broke the women's world marathon record two weeks ago. Funcrunch (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Breaking a world record is not ITN/R. I have corrected the nomination. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like it should be for the marathon records, considering that three of the World Marathon Majors are ITN/R. But that might be off-topic to discuss here. In any case, we posted the current and previous women's world record holders at ITN/R, so there's precedent. Funcrunch (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The races are ITN/R, setting records are not. And Chicago was actually removed from ITN/R. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. I still think breaking a marathon world record should be ITN/R based on the prestige (deserved or not) accorded to that particular race length. But I understand this is not the place to debate that. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. World marathon record time is extremely prestigious, and is certainly in the news. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, pretty major record and we posted the women's record two weeks ago! Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Achievements are not referenced. Stephen 00:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a source that covers that whole section, but not sure if there's a better way to format the reference. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a major world record (and is also particularly important because it occurred outside Berlin). If the women's world record was posted, why not the men's? Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull irrelevant sports record, see Simone Biles discussion This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Biles wasn't posted because it's impossible to properly qualify "most decorated" when the World Championships are held more often now than they were previously; it's also difficult to spell out what most decorated exactly means (Most total medals? Most golds? most Olympic golds?). Meanwhile, a marathon record is a marathon record; simply put, it's easy to contextualize as the fastest marathon time ever. The   Kip  16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull There's no news value in this story Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you like to elaborate on why? The   Kip  16:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support definitely a rare occurrence and significant news. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posing oppose Contrary to what is stated immediately above, this is no longer a rare occurrence, particularly with the revolution in shoe technology. I want to push back at the idea that breaking an athletics world record is some sort of automatic pass to ITN significance. They are likely to become more and more commonplace. I accept that the marathon is one of the more prestigious WRs, but personally I would only see the breaking of the two hour mark as significant enough to post at ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m leaving this comment just to save a track that this discussion had been closed before Pawnkingthree re-opened it by undoing my closure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and close again at a few years since the last men's records it's certainly rare enough for ITN, and it's not just that, it's the first time in world history that man has run under 2.01 in a record marathon, so it's a matter of actual notable significance, not based on what one editor personally feels.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Each editor saying what they personally feel is pretty much how we reach consensus at ITN, otherwise we would just post every article in the news and covered by reliable sources. And discussions aren't usually closed when an item is posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reiner Goldberg

 * Support Article appears sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lior Asulin

 * Oppose A good amount of sourcing work is necessary, there's a lot of unsourced info. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose is largely unreferenced, and coverage of his soccer career appears to be incomplete. The infobox indicates that he was still playing soccer till 2017, but the prose mentions no such activities after 2013. --PFHLai (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Max Verstappen wins his third F1 championship

 * Support, I mean its two major articles, not much anyone can go against here as it is ITN/R. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R and the articles are good Jbvann05  06:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Max Verstappen's article should not be bolded,it's just the season one that's ITN/R, as per all sporting events and per previous postings. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This rightful target has its own problems, too. Namely too many primary sources for race reports (Formula1.com), not enough pronouns in the narrative and very short subsubsections in "Regulation changes" which could just as well be paragraphs. Of course, we have posted far worse before. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment should have sourced text about Verstappen clinching the win at Qatar.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs work Copy-editing for tense and other ongoing issues is needed. For example, "The Qatar Grand Prix is scheduled to return to the calendar, after last being held in 2021." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Fits ITN/R and the articles look fine. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 01:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reluctant/procedural support because the last thing we need is more sports nonsense on ITN but we do have rules This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the constructors' championship was removed from ITNR last year. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we get a newer photo? Image of a 26 year old at 20 is a bit outdated, and this is one of the most famous people in the world. Separately, the use of primary sources seems excessive to me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Newgarden winning the Indy 500 was put on, this is as or more significant. Tableguy28 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Terence Davies

 * Please be reminded to source the Filmography and Award sections. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To what degree is sourcing the feature filmography of a director always necessary? I would understand if we were talking about bit parts for an actor who's appeared on individual episodes of TV shows. But in the case of a filmography, discussions I've had with other editors (and in one case, edits I've had reverted on an artist's page) seems to suggest another approach that essentially says that credits which are verified by the poster, advertising material, and the on-screen credits of a film do not require inline citations in a filmography section because they cannot not be reasonably challenged per the intro of WP:CITE. But it seems the standard operating procedure on ITN is that we always assume that all credits, regardless, must be given an inline citation in the dedicated filmography section.
 * I agree, of course, that the awards section needs to be cited and that the short film section (for titles without WP pages or not otherwise sourced inline) should be cited. But I am unsure if there is a firm set of guidelines that I've missed here. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sunshineisles2 The absence of footnotes where they are expected is a rather eye-catching problem. While perfection is not required, I don't know how far off from perfection is unacceptable when picking wikiarticles to showcase on MainPage. I don't think we have strict rules on this, and I think we should cite as much as can be done and hide/remove the un-verified as needed before posting RD links on MainPage. I wonder if @The Rambling Man can comment on this. -- PFHLai (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Herat earthquakes

 * wait  Abo Yemen  ✉  11:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant enough  Abo Yemen ✉  17:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for what? lol Elisecars727 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * look at the time difference  Abo Yemen ✉  17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality The article overall isn’t a stub, but the sections about the earthquake itself (versus Afghanistan’s tectonic profile) are. The   Kip  13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 14 casualties isn't really notably high for a region with a history of earthquakes. AryKun (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the casualties are now high enough to support this. AryKun (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per Sky News and AP now states 320 killed. @AryKun @User:Abo Yemen may want to reconsider.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant enough. --Bedivere (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for additional updates and expansion in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now but will support once the article is expanded This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Saw no sourcing issues in the article, and I think it is sufficient enough to be posted as an ITN article. The article could still be expanded (and I think more details would come out), but I think this is already good enough. Vida0007 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as the article has been expanded and fully sourced. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict

 * suppport should be added as fast as possible Braganza (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article but oppose blurb as there was more than just rocket attacks  Abo Yemen ✉  08:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb  Abo Yemen ✉  08:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Big event. BastianMAT (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support, this should be snow posting. Albeit I am not sure about blurb and what is actually happening. Guardian writes "Israel declares state of war", and BBC just writes "Israel has readiness for war". Kirill C1 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- post ASAP -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb Obvious massive ramifications; massive attack that has already declared consequences. Article is surprisingly large & well-referenced for such a short span of time; kudos to all editors involved. - Nottheking (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I proposed the second alt blurb with newsworthy detail because Hamas attacking Israel is not specific enough. Merlin  s  orca  08:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I oppose the vague first alternative blurb "Hamas launches an attack on Israel". The same kind it has done repeatedly for the past few years, or is something maybe different this time? Merlin  s  orca  08:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support ––– GMH MELBOURNE  08:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb II this should be posted as soon as possible. Article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support with better phrasing. Probably something mentioning both the infiltrations and the declaration of war. Totalstgamer (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Huge event. Post it immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 09:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb as too sensationalist, opppose alternative blurb 2 as being unconfirmed (5,000 rocket number is only claimed by Hamas leader). Support alternative blurb 1: Article is well-referenced (beside Anadolu Agency and pile of twitter citations) and substantial enough. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance as a no-brainer. However I'm not sure whether the blurbs are a bit too casual (is that how you describe it?) S5A-0043 Talk 10:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Support alt blurb Shadow4dark (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb NTMOTan (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, prefer the first blurb; the second lacks details (Hamas frequently attacks Israel; we need to make it clear that this one is remarkable), while the third lacks clarity about what infiltration involves. Oppose the third, as it also lacks clarity about what happened. (Between the alt blurbs, I prefer #3, "Israel is infiltrated and attacked with over 5000 rockets by Hamas militants") BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted with a variation of the first blurb and the lead sentence of the article - Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, launch a massive rocket attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been more than just rocket attacks: occupation of southern locations. I think that indicating only "attack" would reflect something more general about what has happened. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please propose alternative wording here or at WP:ERRORS. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ...that's literally what they did? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 12:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fuzheado I propose alternative wording here: "Israel is infiltrated and attacked with over 5000 rockets by Hamas militants"? Turns out there has been some discussion about this wording already if you look above Merlin  s  orca  13:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are some positives to your prose, but it also loses how it's more than just Hamas. How about: "Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, launch an attack on Israel, consisting of missle attacks from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured) along with land and sea infiltrations." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support that blurb variation. Could also say "...launch land, sea, and air attacks...". Levivich (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Incorporated it into a new blurb that now reads: Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch land, sea, and air attacks on Israel, including missile strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured). Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is fine. What I suggested below can be reformulated in many ways that are equal or better. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You made a fair point about wiki linking, so I've incorporated your idea here: Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch land, sea, and air attacks against Israel, including missile strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured). Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple suggestions: extend the wikilink to include the whole phrase "launch land, sea, and air attacks"; include newsworthy (quantified) information like numbers; and at the same time remove some excess info that people can discover in the article. 70 Israelis dead is the current amount reported (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-attack-hamas-unprecedented-rocket-invasion/ and https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/07/world/israel-gaza-attack/israel-gaza-attack?smid=url-share)
 * Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch land, sea, and air attacks against Israel, including missile strikes, killing at least 70. (aftermath pictured). Merlin  s  orca  15:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good edit. I have incorporated the longer wiki link, and included the casualty count. However, another editor decided to unlink Israel and Palenstine, which I would not have elected to do, but I'm pinging here for discussion. Thanks. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw those as the kind of overlinking advised against by MOS:OL. I see the other major countries mentioned in the section are not linked. If we do no need links, make sure to avoid linking the disambiguation page at Palestine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support With the second blurb. The firing of rockets into Israel isn't anything new, but the infiltration of Israel and kidnapping civilians is certainly new. Readers miss this key context with current blurb.
 * ChristofferItzakah (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is important to communicate about Hamas' goal to kill and kidnap civilians. Avanto (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's likely too much information for a headline. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The current blurb is inaccurate because of a major omission. The attack includes both rockets and an armed incursion by militants. I recommend changing "a rocket attack on Israel" to "rocket attacks and an armed incursion against Israel". Please wikify Israel.  I don't understand why Gaza is wikified and Israel isn't.  We should use parallel structure and I favor more links. You might wikify Palestinians as well. Jehochman Talk 15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, and this has now been incorporated. See above. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Air attack incorrectly seems to suggest that the Palestinians have some sort of air force that has conducted airstrikes, which they haven't. Please rectify. Idol Destroyer (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb doesn't say "airstrikes" it just says air. Reliable sources are also saying "land, sea, and air"  because of the use of paragliders . So for now, I believe "air" is justified. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, what about Palestinian deaths. Or maybe they just don't matter enough to be mentioned. Idol Destroyer (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to suggest an edit that reflects all around casualties and we can incorporate it. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink Palestinian militant groups to Palestinian political violence and rocket strikes to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.
 * Also reword the current blurb from "Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch land, sea, and air attacks against Israel, including rocket strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured)." to "Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups attack Israel from land and sea, including rocket strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured)." for which the reasoning has already been provided above. Idol Destroyer (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another admin has actually reduced the number of wiki links in the blurb, so I'm not eager to add more until more consensus is established. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is because you linked "Palestine" to a disambiguation page and linking "Israel" went against MOS. Idol Destroyer (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing The blurb is now bloating as the clash develops and the consequences and details emerge.  Tit-for-tat strikes are happening and there seem to be hostages and fighting for control of border hot-spots.  So, this will be best handled as an ongoing item, like the Ukraine conflict and all the other ongoing conflicts.  Note that, while this may now be considered a war, there are 6 major wars currently and Ukraine is just one of them. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  Abo Yemen ✉  18:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, as this will likely be an ongoing conflict.
 * --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is used when either something can not be expressed by a blurb or when the blurb rolls off. With this story being top blurb at the moment, consider ongoing later. Tone 09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the posted blurb is no longer a neutral or accurate representation of what's happening. Its a full scale war, with Israeli attacks on Gaza just as significant as Palestinian attacks on Israel. I would support altblurb3.VR talk 18:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As suggested on WP:ERRORS, I support dropping the casualty figures from the blurb altogether. Idol Destroyer (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment the headline has regressed to the point of no significance. "a series of attacks" could just as easily mean 3 individual rockets fired, each of which were shot down by Iron Dome, resulting in 0 casualties. What is significant is the massive number of rockets (thousands), the coordinated incursions/infiltrations, and the casualty count that is now in the hundreds. I disagree with the decision to remove casualty figures; if 70 became outdated, the figure simply should’ve been updated - like we do for the other headlines.
 * Now that Israel has declared war (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/07/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-war-hamas-palestinians.html and https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/barrage-of-rockets-fired-at-israel-from-gaza-strip-d5b2f05f) we should update to something like:
 * Israel declared war on Hamas following fighting with Palestinian militants that left hundreds dead. Merlin  s  orca  23:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the current headline is relatively weak compared to the previous one. A rough death toll should be included in some way, though I'm not sure we can say "Israel" has declared "war" as it is only an utterance by Netanyahu. For all practical purposes, it's hard to believe this is not an all-out war, but we should find the right WP:V wording here. A possibility:
 * Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch a series of attacks against Israel (aftermath pictured) leading to hundreds of deaths and a declaration of war by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
 * - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 08:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How about "leading to hundreds of deaths in the ensuing war"? The war itself surely trumps its declaration, and several of those hundreds are victims of it, not the initial "series of attacks". Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And yeah, if there's something unverifiable, undesirable or otherwise ugly about "war", something like conflict, fighting or battles might get the same point across slower. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb V or VI - Now that the situation has escalated, the blurb needs an updation as is the usual practice at ITN. Idol Destroyer (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Updating the blurb as per numerous suggestions above. Feel free to adjust. --Tone 09:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was repeatedly suggested above that we enumerate the dead. Wikilinking the Gaza Strip (but not Israel) and piping in Palestinian political violence to represent known groups weren't nearly as popular. I, for one, would like that Easter egg unpiped. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe better to unlink militant groups. Israel is not linked because we do not link countries, Gaza Strip is a region and we usually link those. Tone 14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was hesitating to put "Israel declares a state of war" unless it was official, but it seems like the cabinet has made it so: "Sunday’s move by the Israeli cabinet is an official decision, tantamount to a declaration of war by Congress in the United States." (CNN) I am going to work in some of the casualty count. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It still seems a bit weird to focus on the declaration of a state of war, then attribute the dead to the opening attack, rather than to the now-day-old war itself. But whatever, it's close enough. Thanks for unpiping! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious and need not be said that war results in many people dying. I don't see the need to include the specific casualty count in the ITN posting. More generally, I think it's strange that so often ITN posts include the death toll. It reads like a mass-casualty scorecard: 2,000 dead in an earthquake, 21 dead in a bus plunge, 50 dead in a suicide bombing, 110 dead in a wedding fire (these are all recent ITN postings). It seems like on any given day, there's at least one story on ITN that's "### dead in [event]." Why not just list the event, and let the reader click to get the details, like death toll? The point of the ITN box on the main page is (should be) to help readers find articles, not to give readers a synopsis of the news. /rant Levivich (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that nobody knows what the point of that box is (or should be). But yeah, disaster's pretty obvious and the articles are the place for details, now that you mention it. Support Alt III. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I don’t think our headlines should start to become “Traffic accident occurs in Italy”, “Earthquakes strike Afghanistan”.
 * Omitting death toll would hide the seriousness of the event in the eyes of a potential reader. After all, zero-casualty traffic accidents and minor earthquakes happen all the time, so why would a reader care?
 * The only alternative I see is resorting to adjective-laden language, like “massive earthquakes devastate large swathes of Afghanistan”. But hopefully you can imagine the difficulties and debates involved with trying to write lengthy and flowery language into a headline by consensus, and conclude that including the death toll is the best approach. Merlin  s  orca  22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading Levivich's mind correctly, we believe the only sorts of disaster that a reader will ever potentially see in the box are the sorts of mass casualty events that receive government reaction sections. No elected official shall send his or her condolences to people who hit potholes and bit their tongues (even quite severely). The largeness of the swathes and estimated financial repercussions are also likewise heavily implied by the postings themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt VI for now. If and when it continues for a while it can be moved to ongoing as a "war." Alaexis¿question? 19:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't only "state of war" be wikilinked to prevent users thinking the link leads to an article about the war? Or we could make it "issues a declaration of war" <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurice Bourgue

 * Support Article in good shape, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No concerns. Ready for the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Loren Cunningham

 * Weak oppose Aside from the cn tag in the lead and the article is also really short. I would usually ignore one cn tag, but this article is so short that the little information it contains should be sourced (I would prefer for the article to be expanded though, I'm kinda uncomfortable with posting something this short) Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  22:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Only 253 words of prose? Anything more to write about this guy, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Poole (pitcher)

 * The Career section seems to be truncated at his trade to the Giants in July 1996. What happened afterwards? According to the infobox, his MLB pitching career has 4 more years after the trade, but these latter years are missing in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready. Page update with later career, early life and later life sections. Flibirigit (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Esme Timbery

 * Support: Article looks fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Simone Biles becomes the most-decorated gymnast in history

 * Oppose as better suited for DYK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * DYK for Simone Biles? We're not talking about an obscure athlete here, and her article is neither new nor heavily expanded upon. DYK wouldn't make sense for her. Kurtis (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, sports stories are provincial and special interest and not ITN suitable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Major milestone in gymnastics, and her article is very well-written with lots of sources. I think the only thing it needs is a bit more information on the achievement itself. Kurtis (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Most-decorated" is not a very meaningful term. Very tabloid. Even though the article tries to define it, it's not an agreed "record". (Why not just say "won more World Championship medals than anyone else"?) Even then, it's always difficult to numerically compare sports people from different eras. The numbers of events available change, and the quality of competition varies, so winning more doesn't automatically mean better. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just World Championship medals, per the lead, but all the relevant awards. I don't think "most-decorated" is tabloidy, rather a short way of saying this in sports, entertainment and military "parlance". Agree it is not a cromulent synonym for "greatest of all time". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly in objective World Championship terms, some might say she's also "the best", though that bar was crossed with her 24th in 2019. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most decorated sounds like soldiers', police, etc, awards for valour to me but don't North Americans use that interesting word "winningest"? JennyOz (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly for team sports with regular season games, though, where the winningest aren't always (or even usually) that year's champions. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, I just Google.ca'd "winningest gymnast" and sure enough, USA Today and NPR "use it". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Superlatives like this are not good ITN material. --M asem (t) 23:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have already rejected all time records in basketball (LeBron) and other sports for ITN and this is similar. Gotitbro (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Re the 2023 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, there seem to be lots of Gymnastics World Championships and this one isn't the ITN/R event, which is next year. The article is still written in the future tense and so needs updating.  The number of medals seems subject to inflation as the number of events has increased over time. And our readers seem to be having no trouble finding the Simone Biles article as she's famous. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The claim is incorrect and ill-founded. Firstly, it’s impossible to sum medals won at the Olympics and the World Championships. Secondly, the Olympics are by far the most important contest in gymnastics. Thirdly, the World Championships now take place annually, except in Olympic years, but they were held every second year in the 1980s and every fourth year from the 1930s to the 1970s, which makes it impossible to compare her with gymnasts from the past (for instance, Latynina won five gold and a silver medal at the 1958 World Gymnastics Championships, a feat that Biles has never achieved; furthermore, Latynina won six medals at each Olympics from 1956 to 1964, another feat that Biles has never achieved). She may be the most decorated gymnast at the World Championships in the current format, held annually bar in Olympic years, but she’s still far from what Latynina did in the sport. I’ll support a blurb if she surpasses Latynina to become the most decorated female Olympian, but this is not it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a very tabloid newspeak headline, and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Chrisclear (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New PM in Vanuatu

 * Support: Automatically notable according to ITNR and articles seem in good enough shape. Pithon314 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is NOT itnr. That is head of state.37.252.80.255 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's whoever administers the executive, as listed in List of current heads of state and government. In Vanuatu, that's the Prime Minister.  The head of state of Vanuatu is largely ceremonial. —Cryptic 04:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.
 * Bedivere (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Salwai's article is marked as a stub, and the update consists of a single sentence in the lead. (Also, the NYT source above is a month old and doesn't mention him.) —Cryptic 05:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad on the NYT article, I’ve subbed it out for RNZ. The   Kip  11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still opposing on quality. The single sentence is now longer, and has been moved from the lead to the body; but it still contains nothing that isn't also stated in the blurb.  (I also feel the extremely short tenure of the previous PM should be in the blurb.) —Cryptic 16:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * copied*, but I agree, though I don't think the current blurb mentions the previous PM much either. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Braganza (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weakest oppose: Article is missing information on how he first became leader of the RMC (which I also could not find online) which makes being re-elected to that position confusing. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * question is he opposed to the China deal the old dude did? If so, it's massive. otherwise not ITNR as head of state. Quite normal in parliamentary systems.37.252.80.255 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ITNR:
 * Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.
 * Per that list, the PM of Vanuatu administers the executive, making it ITNR. The   Kip  14:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how opposing China or not determines significance. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

 * Comment There's an unsourced paragraph at the end of the Legal issues section. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This paragraph has now been sourced. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bold In this case, we have an article about this year's prize –2023 Nobel Peace Prize – which is obviously the most specific article about the event and gives details of the competition. That should be the primary article in bold while the winner can be in bold too, if desired. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, the winner is the one that is featured in ITNR, that's clearly who we want to be featured in the blurb. Second, that article has problems: the committee section is unsourced, and beyond mentioning Mohammadi as the winner, there's no aspect actually related to the naming of the winner. M asem (t) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Question I’ve been rebuked for language before, but are the loaded adjectives e.g. Mohammadi made a moving speech, Mohammadi was arbitrarily arrested, she gave a shocking report from prison the norm for such articles? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The last one's a bit too far, but the first two are acceptable descriptions if supported by sources. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * “arbitrarily” is sourced to Amnesty International, which I’m pretty sure is an advocacy organization. Is this enough? <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That one seems perfectly fine to me. Note that arbitrary arrest and detention is a specific phrase used in the UDHR and other human rights contexts, so it doesn't feel like flowery language or anything. Amnesty is an acceptable source per WP:RSP. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It still says Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty but if it’s a standard term then sure. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, true. I thought about this more and it probably is an NPOV violation. What about just saying she was arrested and then saying "Amnesty International called it an arbitrary arrest"? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Done) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. While the prose could probably be improved, it seems to be of sufficient quality. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Levivich (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The paragraph beginning with "On 27 February 2021" is lifted almost verbatim from page 98 (50 in PDF numbering) this report. Might need to be reworded to avoid copyright issues. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tagged that as a copyvio which is going to block posting until its fixed. There may be a need to investigate the whole article on that issue. M asem  (t) 18:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector I'm disregarding the iran-protests.com hit as it incorporates text in the article which has evolved over history and its other profiles have major similarities to Wikipedia articles, e.g. Nasrin Sotoudeh vs their profile. sawtbeirut.com seems like a highly suspicious source as the first two pargraphs duplicate each other and the article was published after the relevant text was added. gc4hr mainly duplicates quotes, which should be fine. Running it against the PDF only turns up the quotes besides the aforementioned copyvio. I don't think there are other copyvios in the article, nor can I find another way to phrase the copyvio text that is just as good. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the identified copyrighted text. Considering that the text was added by one new editor who has made five total edits on the page in one day in 2021, I don't think we need to be concerned about wider copyright problems (absent additional evidence). Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * On hold due to copyright investigation.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good use case for LLM paraphrasing. Sandizer  (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On February 27, 2021, she posted a video on social media in which she explained that she had been summoned to court twice in December. These summons were related to a case that had been initiated against her while she was in prison. Mohammadi made it clear in the video that she was refusing to attend these court hearings and intended to defy any verdicts that might be issued.In the video, she recounted incidents of sexual abuse and mistreatment, both endured by herself and other women during their time in prison. She also emphasized that authorities had not yet addressed a complaint she had lodged on December 24, 2020, regarding these issues. The case that had been brought against her was linked to a protest staged by female political prisoners at Evin Prison. This protest had been in response to the killing and arrests of demonstrators by security forces in November 2019.
 * Even if we convert the dates and move everything about the case in one paragraph, the is still overly verbose while basically copying large parts of the original material. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Too bad we don't have articles on all the laureates for each year. Sandizer  (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sunfyre (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted after resolving the copyright investigation. Kudos to . I've used a lightly modified version of the proposed blurb. While it could be shortened to "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Narges Mohammadi for her activism in support of women's and human rights in Iran", that reverses the quoted line ("fight against" -> "support of") and felt like too much of a change to make without discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Coombs

 * Support: Article looks fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Denning

 * Suppport - A similiar situation happened earlier this year with Rolf Harris, whose death was not reported immediately. Granted, his was reported two weeks after the fact rather a year later, but I think what matters is that it is only being reported now. LM2000 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support as it meets all necessary criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Everything seems sourced. Marking as ready. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Taj El-Din Hilaly

 * Posted Stephen 22:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Butkus

 * Support This is already a good article, and it seems ready to be posted. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Elisecars727 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  needs more citations.—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just cited basically everything in that section. The only remaining claim in the article tagged with CN is about a 2008 TV episode, which can be easily verified by searching for "Top 10 Most Feared Tacklers" on YouTube and going to 39:38, but I think there's a guideline against linking to/citing YT videos. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Stuck my oppose—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a reference for that last CN claim. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support; meets minimum criteria This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This attracted my attention because the name stood out. Not being familiar with the subject, I found the article to be a good read and it's already a GA.  I don't think that RD does the subject justice as they were outstanding at the top of their field, but suppose that there will be plenty of name recognition. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree but dont want to disturb the calm waters that is ITNC by suggesting a blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article overall is in good shape and is well-sourced. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient for RD. Marking as ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh

 * Note that I've removed the previous nomination, which was closed due to arbitration restrictions around this topic, per WP:DENY. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this was already posted some time ago and by now the exodus has almost ended. Brandmeistertalk  21:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Speedy Close per Brandmeister ❤History  Theorist❤  23:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Speedy Close per Brandmeister & HistoryTheorist.  4me689  (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - apparently only 50 Armenians remain in the Republic of Artsakh (which is fucking crazy by the way), and as such, the exodus is essentially over by now. — Knightof  theswords  00:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose in short, per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

 * Comment I've added an altblurb, as we typically include the award's rationale. Brandmeistertalk  12:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article appears to lack info in detail i.e. appears mostly as proseline. Listing resources which can be used to expand: Norwegian WP, Norwegian Encyclopedia, Danish Theatre Encyclopedia, Danish Encyclopedia, Sceneweb. Gotitbro (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The bibliography is incomplete as per the Nobel biobibliography. Been fixing it but still needs work and I can't fix it for another three hours. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 17:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Only 2 CN tags, bibliography and awards have been remedied, and his personal life/biography has been expanded. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 21:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, looks good to go now. Gotitbro (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support obviously a major event, ITN/R for a reason unlike the many obscure sports championships. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nyorsk Reading the article, I noticed it said "This made him the first Nynorsk writer to receive the prize". I first thought that Nynorsk was a place but it turns out that it's a language.  As I'd not heard of this before, it seemed like an interesting encyclopedic aspect.  (I find that we have a separate Wikipedia in that language to avoid conflict).  Perhaps the blurb might mention this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though it is only a form of Norwegian and a blurb can fit only so mundane including the Prize rationale. The nationality (and the implied language therein) thus in this case suffices. Gotitbro (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-native Norwegian speaker here: Nynorsk is a written standard, not a language (the other important standard is Bokmål). Nynorsk's more popular in less populous, less metropolitan areas. It's sometimes seen as a form of national pride since Bokmål is more similar to Danish's writing system. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 15:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Nynorsk is used in cities too, but generally in smaller, more Eastern ones. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 15:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As a native Norwegian speaker I was just about to make this correction but you beat me to it! It's indeed important to remember that Nynorsk and Boy kmål are just written standards, which is why no one speaks Bokmål or Nynorsk. They speak their dialects, which of course may be closer to Bokmål or Nynorsk. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (w/ comment on alternative blur 2) — I would go with alternative blurb 2 which I just added. Alternative Blurb 2 is the same as the first blurb (by Masem) except it links to 2023 Nobel Prize in Literature, the latter article adding further context for interested readers. But keeping the blurb to minimal verbiage. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and small comment - Looks good to go for me. As a minor point: I would prefer if we referred to him as "author and playwright", as he's known for both his novels (his latest one, Septology, was widely acclaimed) and his plays. Khuft (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BangJan1999 18:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2 I’m curious about the comment that we usually include a Nobel Prize rationale. If so, we should swap to ALT1. Could we please get some input on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwede66 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the other Nobels, we can usually write to what specific field of research they were involved with that they award for. They don't offer a simple explanation for the Literature and Peace prizes, so it makes sense to include some brief statement why they were awarded based on the Nobel Committee's explanation. --M asem (t) 19:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Cricket World Cup

 * Oppose In contrast to the footy World Cup, the cricket one does not receive the same level of worldwide news coverage as to make it appropriate for ongoing. The final result is an ITNR and we can post then. --M asem (t) 12:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I notice that the 2022 Asian Games are currently getting more attention from our readers and especially India at the 2022 Asian Games. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not worth much <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another day, another reminder that nobody cares about readership stats. The   Kip  14:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% Secretlondon (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That can still be nominated for ongoing (I think we have posted it as such in the past as well). Gotitbro (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We missed the bus on that one, unless the closing ceremonies will be posted, of which we don't usually do. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Few global tournaments beyond the FIFA World Cup and Olympics receive enough coverage to qualify for ITNR; this sadly isn’t one of them. The   Kip  14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seoncdmost popular sport in the world; sorry if you guys haven't seen the coverage, but there is obviously tons of coverage in countries which actually play the game (which is like 1/5 of the world). AryKun (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it right to assume 4/5 of the world don't care? Is this front page news in South America? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's OK then, we'll never post any sport apart from soccer in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume the 2022 Rugby World Cup is at least sports page news in some South American countries, like Argentina, which is contending for a knockout stage berth, for example. The 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup should also be in the news in some South American countries, like Argentina, for example, which infamously did not qualify, after losing in the 2019 final.
 * Yeah, I know there are a lot more people in India than South America, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Second-biggest sport in the world and this was posted to ongoing in 2019 with no issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it really tho? Im having trouble finding any consistency in the various places on the internet ranking popularity, in either audience or participants, of sports besides broad agreement that soccer is first. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nominate the championship, this does not need "ongoing" unless we're also looking to add 2023 Major League Baseball postseason alongside it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean—why not both? They're both in the news and both ongoing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If Cricket World Cup has 4/5 of the world not interested, baseball has what? 49/50 of the world not interested? Howard the Duck (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A better comparative would be the World Baseball Classic which happens on a similar interval and level rather than an annual event (we rarely put those in ongoing). Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing per above but I support posting the winners of the championship. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support If this was posted the last time I don't see why we should digress from that now. This is already ITNR so posting the championship on its own goes having an ongoing before that does not hurt. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Gotitbro. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - but support winner of championship. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as limited in scale. We didnt post the FIBA world cup in ongoing and that has much wider participation (compare this map and this one). And I doubt this is something people are seeing in the news and are curious about, those traffic stats are coming from people already interested in it. The coverage I see of it for example reads While the event enraptures lovers of the game from Durham, England, to Durban, South Africa, it barely hits the radar of sports fans in many other lands. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Translation: "Not very popular in the USA". Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the US is one of the few countries included in the qualifiers. Its everybody else Id imagine that cared even less. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * More like the Western Hemisphere. Howard the Duck (talk) Howard the Duck (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And most of Africa, and Asia beyond the Indian subcontinent, and most of Europe for that matter. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeez... waiting for someone to say South Asia has more people than Africa and South America combined. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, all of South America except for Guyana (which is culturally Caribbean) didn't gave a shit. They didn't even try to qualify. Canada even. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The West Indies exists (granted they're not very good anymore, but still). AryKun (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate reality is that there is truth to the above statement. The same reality that would have us post Norman Borlaug’s death but not post M S Swaminathan’s death.  Ktin (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's because the CWC guys don't bother letting minnows with no chance of qualifying participate. All of South Asia is colored in on that basketball map, and I will guarantee you that no one gives a shit about our basketball teams here. AryKun (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Do not see issues with posting this in ongoing. Also, seems like it has been posted in the past, no reasons to change now. Also, in ITNR so that will cover the end of tournament posting. Ktin (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - If ITN is going to post the result of a multi-day competition, it should post the competition to "ongoing" as well, as it'll be more helpful to readers to have the link during the competition instead of just after it's over (and thus fulfill the purpose of ITN: to help readers find articles about things in the news). Levivich (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only if we also post the MLB postseason.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's compare this annual national tournament in the world's eight most popular sport to the once-every-four-years World Cup of the world's second most popular sport. Brilliant comparison, totally makes sense. Honestly, I wonder how long it'll take the Americans here to admit that their favorite games just aren't the erst of the world's favorite. AryKun (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that paragon of reliable information, worldatlas.com. "World" Cup is a bit of a misnomer given the sea of countries that dont appear to participate (or give a crap). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There's just ten competing teams, and it'd be in ongoing for a month and a half. That's disproportionate compared to the three sporting events we do regularly have consensus to put in ongoing: the Summer and Winter Olympics last a bit over two weeks, with essentially every nation competing in the Summer and 90ish in the Winter, and the FIFA World Cup is 32 teams over about a month.  Posting this to ongoing in 2019 was an error we should not repeat. —Cryptic 01:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) LGBT Rights in Mauritius

 * Oppose Anything outside the first country to pass such laws is not as significant, as we've done in the past. --M asem (t) 12:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The   Kip  14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, per my comment below, the blurb isn't even remotely accurate. The   Kip  21:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment What was the first? Elisecars727 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb seems to be inaccurate; per LGBT rights in Africa, and not counting overseas territories + countries in which no laws against have ever existed, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, and South Africa have all beaten them to the punch. The   Kip  21:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Oppose as 1. inaccurate and 2. provincial even if true This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unlike gay marriage, same-sex intercourse has long been legalized in much of the world. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Sikkim flash floods

 * Apologies, but with the newest blurb on ITN being from 5 October, I've marked this as stale. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harriet Pattison

 * Ready. No concerns found. Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claus Wisser

 * Support Article is sufficient for RD. I did some minor work as well to fix any remaining problems. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks in good shape, and is well-sourced. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as Ready per above. The   Kip  21:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pat Hays

 * Support, article is properly sourced. Unknown-Tree (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the sourcing looks pretty good with no errors.  4me689  (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Chinese submarine incident

 * Strong oppose The article is 1 sentence, that's not going to fly Elisecars727 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this Wiki article only has one sentence, meaning that it is insufficient article size for ITN, and this article may be a future candidate for deletion.  4me689  (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the nom other than the article quality has a long way to go. On a wider note, all(?) the reporting on this appears to trace back to the Daily Mail, which according to WP:RSP has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) HS2 cancellation

 * Oppose This is not really ITN-worthy due to the fact that we usually don't post just because of the canceling of a building project, and this is just not something I would expect to see on ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Phase 1 has another 10 years to go and so phase 2 is too WP:CRYSTAL. The rail network in the UK will be getting other updates in this time and, as it's all quite political, complex and subject to further change, it's best to focus on the completion of significant pieces. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for want of a bigger story. Suggest DYK. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wayne Comer

 * Oppose Added a few CN tags. The   Kip  17:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - CN tags have been addressed. The   Kip  21:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I've added sources to the statements you tagged. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  20:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Venice bus crash

 * Support , it looks decently sourced.  4me689  (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a tragic disaster widely covered in the news, and the article looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt The detail provides more clarity. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough, and the unusual circumstances of plunging 50 feet onto power lines killing over twenty people should allay any NOTNEWS concerns.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Article is in good shape and circumstances are considerably more unique than the average bus crash. The   Kip  17:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb II, good article, rare circumstances Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not wish to express any thoughts on notability yet, but I have two concerns regarding alt2. Firstly, plunge is linked to Bus plunge an article about the journalistic practice of reporting bus plunges. That seems like a weird choice, especially since the article itself says some believe that such reports aren't about newsworthiness but to fill space. It's an interesting choice to include that on an ITN blurb, since ITNs notability/significance standard is supposedly higher than the news. Secondly, why is "killed" the bold link? Shouldn't it be "when a bus plunges", as that's the event? It's common practice, for example the bottom blurb on ITN right now has "a suicide bombing" bold linked, not "killed", and it seems to comply more with MOS:LINKCLARITY. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's especially strange for us to link to bus plunge, an article about newspaper phrasing, when it's Wikipedia's decision to phrase the blurb in this way. I've removed the link, but left the rest alone in case others would like to weigh in. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that bus plunge story was linked in one of the blurbs; that's certainly inappropriate. Thanks for removing it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. High death toll & interesting circumstances & also the precedence of posting 2018 Hong Kong bus accident previously. Added image. By the way, there is currently a RM going on for this article, does that impact the ITN posting? S5A-0043 Talk 01:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, considering the high death toll. Also, the article's structure is well cited and looks ready. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 02:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * Oppose Bawendi's article is currently orange tagged for primary sources, Brus's and Ekimov's articles are stubs. All of the articles need a fair bit of work before they're ready for posting. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Orange tag appears to have been removed, but other two remain stubs. The   Kip  16:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment picture is tagged to be removed.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment outside the picture issue (I note there's one on Brus' page), Brus and Bawendi are ready on quality, but Ekimov's is still a bit stubby but it is fully sourced. --M asem (t) 12:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Dark

 * Comment: Jacqueline Dark needs some references otherwise pretty close.  Spencer T• C 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nomination, Happily888. I'd like to see clarified if the tenor parenting is the father of her child - conflicting sources. I also wish her - a great singer in many fields - a better lead, but have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The interview in The Sydney Morning Herald (2013) is clear on that: "We picked the sperm donor together." But I think there's no need to delve into that kind of details in article; IMO, it's fine as it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree if this is so, - I had no time to read all sources in detail, which is one of the reasons I didn't nominate. I just remember that one source read (to me, and I may have misread) as if he was also the biological father. I don't remember where, and you are right: doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost ready. One paragraph needs a citation. Flibirigit (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find what you mean? Did Michael fix it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, its already been fixed. I've now marked this as ready. Happily888 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Khoshbakht Yusifzadeh

 * Ready. No concerns found. Flibirigit (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Siam Paragon mass shooting incident

 * Weak oppose While it is unfortunate, it just seems to be domestic. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that the picture can be changed to something else since this picture does not depict an accurate image of the shooting. Also, dont put a picture of the shooter. He is a minor. Ilantheeditor (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Domestic crime, small death toll. Not really appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. While it is tragic, the death toll is not notable enough for ITN. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Tragic, but not at the scale meriting a blurb. The   Kip  16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per above. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a domestic crime, had this happened in America, this wouldn't even be mentioned, and there is a small death toll. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Kevin McCarthy ousted

 * Oppose Knew this nom was coming. It’s historically significant, but domestic enough that it doesn’t have the reach to be blurbed. I don’t believe we posted his election as Speaker either. The   Kip  21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * His non-elections were news in Europe. His eventual election was not. In contrast, news are going to be full of his ousting today, and not just in Europe. Renerpho (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic political drama, and its only a speakership, not a position of leadership of the country. Dont think any other non confidence vote for the speaker of a legislative body would even be considered here. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker leads one of the legislative houses and is second in line to the presidency after the Vice President. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not unusual for a lot countries. If the presidency was vacated and the speaker assumed power, that would be a completely different story, with different considerations. (and qualify for ITN/R even). ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   13:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose bad for him, but he’s not a world leader. Interesting, but not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Strongly Support Alternative Blurb 1 Much more notable than his election back in January. If I recall correctly, this has never happened before. This is notable, and relevant. BigCheese76 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough for ITN. <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 21:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The removal of the leader of a legislative body of a UN security council member, a first for that country, isn't important? What is important enough? 331dot (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The removal of the President of the United States would be important enough. We don't post domestic squabbles here. If this were any other country, it wouldn't even be considered. If it's not the leader of a nation, I won't consider posting it. <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 21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but we should be posting good articles about events that are heavily in the news, since this is in the news. Please see "please do not" above. Ukraine might have a strong interest in their being a speaker. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were a Parliamentary country we would post the removal of its most powerful member of the legislature. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While the Speaker plays an important role in US politics that makes the American Speaker different from the Speakers of other countries, the Speaker doesn’t have the executive role that a Prime Minister has. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the same way that the election of the speaker of the British HoC or the resignation of the president of the French National Assembly isn't important enough. Please. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Speaker of the HOC is non partisan, unlike the Speaker of the US House which directs legislation. And, we can't consider what isn't nominated. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can use examples to support our arguments. Where is the prohibition?
 * The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is not a Head of Government or Head of State, and does not assume diplomatic functions. No matter how much of a director of the legislative process he may be (I guess it is good to advise you to know how it works in other countries). _-_Alsor (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Apparently I've already said too much, so I'll just leave it at this with you. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support This is the first time this has has happened in US history. Swordman97  talk to me 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems unremarkable - even if it's rare in that nation. We (rightfully) refused the ouster of the Canadian speaker of the house last week - even though it was under much more unusual and controversial circumstances! And I doubt we'll see a nomination for today's election of Canada's new speaker - despite the historic first of being the first black speaker! I'm not sure it's even the most significant event to occur in the USA Congress in the last week! Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The role of the Speaker in Canada is different than the Speaker in the US. The PM is more important in Canada. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that's relevant - it's more about the significance of the event and the news coverage. I don't think Nazis were involved in McCarthy's ouster. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think there will be less news coverage about McCarthy's ouster than the Canadian speaker's? I don't. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * STRONG support. Has received international breaking-news coverage, and is a significant event. Among the top news of the day. Perhaps a better blurb should be found though. SecretName101 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not international news. Elisecars727 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not required that an event be international news to be posted. As said above, "Please do not Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." 331dot (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess Elisecars727 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose domestic politics, not a head of state. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because this is a first in history, and also has international impacts (will delay further US aid to Ukraine). I probably wouldn't support if this wasn't a first. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Support Yes, this is domestic politics, but it is true that it made news internationally. Renerpho (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Removing the weak qualifier. I fully support, on the same grounds as I gave earlier, and per Nomader's and Tamzin's votes below. Renerpho (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb II. Renerpho (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Changing to Alt blurb III. Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The US system of government is explicitly designed so that power is not concentrated in one person – not even the President. The Speaker is quite significant in passing budgets, as seen recently, and now the recent temporary deal is unlikely to hold.  There will then be further brinkmanship and financial instability which will be significant because of the size of the US.  As this hasn't happened before, we're in interesting times.  But the blurb should be like the alt in specifying that this is the US speaker, as many readers won't already be familiar with the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first time in U.S. history this has happened. Analogies to other countries that routinely shake up leadership are inapt because the U.S. political system functions very differently. Oppose votes on the grounds that this is a national issue should be discounted per ITNCDONT #2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is posted, the blurb should include a link to either October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election - Wikipedia or Removal of Kevin McCarthy - Wikipedia, as well as the article for the speakership position. Amshpee (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose domestic politics and he can return according CNN. Not important enough for world news as he is not head of state or government. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * also no constitutional crisis. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition against posting "domestic politics". 331dot (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it might not but there is no constitutional crisis and he might return. We will repost this anyway if they come with a successor. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: p  b  p  21:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose part of the political circus the House has been. Also understanding that we are to try to combat external systematic bias by understanding that the press are going crazy over this but it presently has little ramifications in how this country is governed. --M asem (t) 21:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no Speaker, the House cannot pass legislation to keep the government open past mid November, and the government not operating is certainly significant. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an acting speaker per house procedures to ensure the continuation of government. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING oppose voters, . <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 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding to arguments with counterarguments in a civil manner is hardly bludgeoning. It is debatable as to if the temporary speaker can move legislation. Is this ITN, or isn't it? 331dot (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether or not the comments are civil. Responding to nearly every oppose comment in a discussion to contradict them is bludgeoning. In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. It is undesirable and considered a form of disruptive editing. <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 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "contradict", I'm trying to discuss and persuade, as is everyone here. I've already conceded one of your points above as "fair enough". If that's "bludgeoning", then we all are doing it. If you would like to discuss this further with me, please use my talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ten comments in 35 minutes, may indeed be excessive User:331dot. I'm confused though - if the Speaker is at home with the flu for a week ... does the entire House come to a halt? Surely not. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The office isnt vacant then, there is an acting speaker. Right now the only business the House can consider is who to elect speaker. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By my count, 331dot has responded to five out of nine opposes. Not what I would call "responding to nearly every oppose comment", nor "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own", nor bludgeoning, nor excessive. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility this mess will lead to another gov't shutdown in 45 days, but anything outside of "McCarthy outed" is all speculation, even by the media. The only other thing that the media are stamping on in a non-opinionated matter is this being the first time that has happened -- however, superlatives like this, particularly when only limited to one chamber of one country's governing body, do not make for good ITN stories.
 * The media is riled up on this showing the GOP as the clown show they have been all term, but that's all opinion and which does not make for good ITN coverage. M asem (t) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic political kerfuffle. We would never post this sort of thing if it involved any other country. See WP:Systemic Bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were any other country, people would be supporting and then replying to oppose votes saying "you only opposed because this isn't in America". We can keep speculating like this, or alternatively, we could stop playing the "you're just biased" game every time a new ITN blurb comes up. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be helpful if the proposed blurbs actually picked out a bolded target article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support due to the fact that it's precedent breaking, and that the Speaker of the House is the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it’s not. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The President is head of state and government, but the Speaker is the head of the legislature and is an incredibly powerful role. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * head of the legislature ≠ head of the government. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. As you presumably know, in a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the head of both the Legislature and the Executive. In a Presidential system like in the US, the President is the head of the Executive. The Speaker is the head of the Legislature, so in that respect, the speaker basically has the same legislative powers as the Prime Minister does. In addition, the Speaker is chosen from the members of the House, again, similar to how a Prime Minister is chosen. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  18:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose he will likely be voted back as Speaker in the upcoming days/weeks. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this claim? Democrats won't help McCarthy, and what will persuade the rebels to change their mind? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * McCarthy announced he is not running for speaker again. Curbon7 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this has significant consequences such as a government shutdown, we can post then. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Obligatory Canadian oppose because of (insert whining about Americentrism). In all seriousness, this is big news, but is it really that important outside of the US? If it leads to a shutdown, I'd be tempted to support, but in the meantime, let's wait a while.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We would likely post a US government shutdown(IIRC we posted the last one) but we certainly wouldn't post it as "30 days ago Kevin McCarthy was tossed out of the Speaker's chair which led to this government shutdown". 331dot (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OpposeToo many Support arguments of the form "IF this isn't resolved quickly, we WILL have a crisis." That means this event in itself isn't huge for the country, yet. It is huge for the Republican Party, but I don't think one party's problems in any country should make it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think a lot of people here think the Speaker of the House in the US is like the Speaker in the UK or Canada. It is far more powerful. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's not as if there will be no Speaker forever. The most likely outcome is a new speaker in a few days. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Struggling to see the impact here. He was only Speaker for nine months, and seemed to spend most of that time just trying to hold on to his job. The House will elect another Speaker in due course. Yes it may be a "first", but it's not going to actually affect anyone in the way a government shutdown would. It is, ultimately, internal political squabbling. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Three of the four proposed blurbs say "ousted". That's both slangish, and unclear. Might look good in tabloid headlines, but we should do better. Ousted how far? From the job, the House, the party, the country, Washington...? Is ousting a physical action, such as defenestration? (It sounds a bit like it?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot. Interesting story with global coverage, historic occurrence in U.S. politics with some international ramifications. Solid prose article. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support - meets I and II of WP:ITNPURPOSE; readers are certainly looking for this item now, and it will intrigue those who are perhaps less engaged in U.S politics but will no doubt still interest them. Historic moment as well. — Knightof  theswords  23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * However, we use ITNCRIT to decide what items to display in the box. ITNCRIT distills ITNPURPOSE into quantitative and qualitative aspects to consider. M asem (t) 00:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - might I also add, I think we should really do away with "we shouldn't post because I believe we wouldn't post if it happened in x instead of y!" arguments. They're essentially the discussion equivalent of WP:CRYSTAL; being based on pure speculation, and have accomplished nothing aside from further narrowing the pool of select few topics that even have a chance of getting posted on here. — Knightof  theswords  23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now that McCarthy has announced he is no longer seeking the Speakership -- he's just out completely. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, it clearly is something that people are searching for now and would showcase the quality of our article on the matter. I'd also argue to Hurricane Noah's point on the Acting Speaker -- they aren't actually... doing anything. They will do nothing until they vote on who the new Speaker is, basically the US government stops functioning completely and will have a series of votes now.  Nomader  ( talk ) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to a Comment I made earlier, a question from a non-American unfamiliar with the details of US political machinations - What's he out of? The job of Speaker, the Republican Party, the House (does that need a capital?), Washington? My earlier concern was about three of the four proposed blurbs saying "ousted". Huh? We are global. Let's please be clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed from speaker of the house. 1solo2 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Next question. By whom? And so what? What's it mean? What happens next? Just repeating headlines intended for internal US consumption is not good enough for this global encyclopedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point, and I could see an argument that we should wait until a new Speaker is elected before posting this as well -- I prefer the third Alt version here which I think is the clearest and most concise summation of the situation as it stands now.
 * A faction of Republicans joined Democrats in voting out the Speaker, highlighting intra-party conflict that has honestly never happened before in the U.S. The House needs a Speaker to operate. Without one, it can only vote on "Who should be Speaker", preventing any legislation passage at all, including funding for Ukraine and other internationally-important notes. I'd liken it to the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill in Australia or the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election in the UK -- except... this has never happened before in the American system, so it's just kind of chaos right now. It's also not the leader of the country, but in the American system, the Speaker is a critical piece to allowing government to function so I'd argue this should still be included. Just what a mess. Nomader  ( talk ) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I see a number of comments saying it's "local," but by that definition we shouldn't consider the change of Prime Ministers or Kings either; this is counter-productive, and is just an example of a lot of Wikipedians forgetting the 2nd "Please do not" guideline. Just because McCarthy wasn't Speaker of the House for the entire world doesn't make it "too local." And while not being the sole head of government (contrast to the analogous position of PM in the world's many Westminster-styled parliamentary systems) is a difference, that actually only really applies to the rational for the change in Speakership to not be ITN/R.
 * In short, there's a lot of folk forgetting that we're not debating whether all Speakership changes are ITN/R, but rather whether this particular event is "newsworthy," as well as having encyclopediac significance. These two parts are pretty self-evident: we have loads of evidence of heavy reporting of this event all over the world, and its significance is already established given this event Already has a substantial article.
 * It's pretty hard to question that this whole event cycle (of replacing Kevin McCarthy as speaker) is easily on the sort of event that we post: it is highly unusual. And because the ouster itself is the unusual part, that's what'd be posted, not the eventual election of a replacement. Nottheking (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support As plenty of other domestic political events across the world have been featured in the news and this is a first time in the United States congress, at least recently, it's an event worth a blurb in my opinion. --AXEdits (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support per 331dot, Nomader, and others. If this becomes a routine occurrence in the House, then sure, we shouldn't post it. For now, it is an unprecedented event that has resulted in the removal of the #3 government figure in the world's superpower. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Movement underway to name Trump to the speakership, much bigger news if this transpires. Let’s see what chaos comes. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump's not going to be elected Speaker: a few Republicans might vote for him, much like how they did during the January elections, but it's just political grandstanding. -- Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose internal politics. If the head of state / head of government is affected then sure, for everyone else I oppose regardless of what country it is. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The "only head of state/government" is for ITN/R. We're not discussing whether all US Speaker changes are ITN/R, (this isn't even the page to discuss that!) but whether this particular event is noteworthy. And to call it "internal politics" is to ignore #2 of WP:ITNCDONT. - Nottheking (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Historic first. Has a good article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The office of the Speaker of the House has existed continuously since April 1, 1789, and the speaker is second in the line of succession to the US presidency. The speakership is an exceptionally powerful office, and this is the first time in 234 years that a speaker has lost his job through a vote of the House of Representatives. This is an unprecedented development in US politics, and has an immediate impact on military assistance to Ukraine. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, significant event in American politics. Connormah (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support this one as I did the similar event in January. The house speaker has never been removed before, and is a crucial role in the government — the House of Representatives has a lot of power over diplomacy, and a lot of the dispute stems from the funding of Ukraine; it is by no means solely internal politics. I agree with Rockstone35, many may be misconstruing the role of the Speaker of the House as the US does not use a Westminster system. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support alt blurb 3 by the way. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (altblurb 3) - While I came here with the intent to oppose this to avoid Americentric bias, particularly considering we did not post Anthony Rota's resignation in Canada, it does appear that this is making pretty big news elsewhere, or at least across the pond where it is the top story for the BBC and The Telegraph . I think a lot of the opposition here is ignoring WP:ITNCDONT: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. And while I understand and support the idea that we should avoid ITN being solely or heavily America-centric, I wouldn't want to overcorrect in the other direction and not post something historic in the U.S. in the name of WP:GLOBAL. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree strongly with you, we need to ensure that we don't overcorrect. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Altblurb3 at least avoids the tabloid word "ousted", using "removed" instead. That's good. But this non-American is still confused. Who removed him? Really? The article says the House did, but I'm getting the impression that his party has turned against him. Is that what's really happened here? If that's case, THAT is surely the big news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 8 Republican members of the House who were unhappy w/McCarthy voted w/the Democrats to oust McCarthy. 1 of the Republicans (Matt Gaetz) made the initial motion to vacate. B/c of the slim Republican majority, there were enough votes to remove McCarthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Being unprecedented does not make an event more impactful. If we don't post speaker elections, I don't see the point of posting a removal. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing saying we don't post speaker elections, we just haven't, in the past, because they're not notable enough for here. A speaker gets elected every two years in the US House. This is the only time a Speaker has been removed. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The question in my mind is if a change in the Speaker was not considered notable enough to post in the past, why now. DYK is a great place for interesting factoids. The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed, and it appears consensus is to not post such changes. And with all due respect you did compare the Speaker to a PM above, which simply does not follow. Yes, this hinders the functioning of the government, but the Speaker is hardly the most powerful person in US politics, not by a mile. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed -- That is not my impression, and it doesn't seem to be what's reported in the news. The most interesting thing is the fact they have been removed, not that they have changed. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing reports here in Australia emphasising the mess the Republican Party is in as the major issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And quote frankly, that fact is more trivia then anything. But I guess it's moot now. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, wait ~ I agree with Estar8806, but I believe we should wait until a new speaker is voted in - however long that takes - and include both McCarthy's ousting and the newly elected speaker in the blurb, so that ITN isn't filled up with two separate blurbs discussing McCarthy's ousting and the election of his successor a few weeks later; if this blurb is posted now, I'm sure ITN will have another nomination for the newly elected US speaker whenever that happens, and that would certainly seem a little over Americentric. Alternatively, we could post the blurb now and change it when a new speaker is chosen, but it depends on whether McCarthy's ousting or a newly chosen Speaker of the House seem like more ITN-worthy blurbs. If McCarthy's ousting seems more covered among news sites, then I agree the blurb should be posted now. Daneellis114 02:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.43.157 (talk)
 * Oppose. Speakership of a house, not that significant, even if a first for that country. We can't post speakership changes for all countries. Posting just this one only adds to the systemic bias. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the US Speaker of the House is significantly more powerful than the Speaker of the House within a Parliamentary system. Not posting this would indicate systemic bias against the US (which is a serious problem here). Just because it's from the US doesn't mean it's 'not' newsworthy. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * However more powerful they are, they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. If anything the post mid-term development in the US House show, it is that. I can not take any claims implying the US is the one suffering from bias anywhere seriously, unless accompanied by overwhelming evidence. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. Not at all. In Westminster countries, the Speaker is a more procedural office. The Speaker of the U.S. House has a near-unchecked pocket-veto (in the colloquial sense) over all legislation in the United States, in that they can prevent it from ever coming to a vote, and have enormous power to shape what legislation does come to a vote. They are either the second- or third-most powerful person in the U.S. government, depending on what responsibilities a given vice president has. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is why I say that the Speaker is the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. Notwithstanding alsor's incorrect insistence that that's not the case, the Speaker is the most powerful member of Congress, and is the leader of the legislature. It's hard to make direct comparisons between the Presidential and Westminster systems, but the Speaker in the US has the legislative power of a prime minister, even if not the executive power (which falls to the President and his cabinet). -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the Speaker of the House is not even 'remotely' the same between the USA and Westminster-style Parliametnary systems. The better parallel with the latter is... the Prime Minister. In both cases their powers, the rules for their selection, etc. 'are more or less identical'. (down to the fact that while each lower chamber can elect anyone they wish for their respective posts, the winner is almost always just the leader of the majority/plurality party of the chamber)
 * So saying it's "not significant" would be the same as saying that the oust of Liz Truss wasn't significant, as another case of a party's leader being forced out after a short, turbulent premiership due to losing the support of their own party. As a reminder, no election of the UK House of Commons was held, with only an internal party leadership vote that elected Rishi Sunak to succeed her. And at the time... There was overwhelming support with nearly no one opposing posting it.
 * And this was NOT ITN/R, because that was instead applied to Rishi Sunak's election four days later. Both events got posted as their own blurbs. - Nottheking (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said! And we shouldn't have posted the resignation of Truss, I would say. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference of the American system is that you elect the executive and the legislature separately, so that the two branches can in theory be truly independent of each other. That extra power that occasionally comes from it, lies in the House, not its Speaker. The Speaker may appear to do big things when proxying for the majority; that does not mean they did said big things with the power inherent to them. To wit, the Speaker prevents a bill from reaching the floor not because they themselves have the power to decide which bill gets a vote and which does not, but because they, by virtue of being Speaker, have the majority behind them, and can use that majority to fail said bill on the floor anyway. If they don't have the majority support in blocking the bill, the majority can simply vote them out and elect a Speaker who will put the bill to a vote. The Speakers in other countries have enormous power in shaping and influencing what gets done too, by the simple fact that, in almost all cases, an influential member of the Party and the House is who gets elected Speaker in the first place.
 * As for the comparison with the prime minister, as you all acknowledge, the PM has executive powers. The Speaker does not. So, yeah, the Speaker is like the prime minister except for lacking any executive powers and just staying in the House, in other words the Speaker is like the Speaker, same as everywhere else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, it's a current and significant event at the moment. It would be worthy to be in the news. Rager7 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Alt blurb I, Alt blurb II. Weak support Alternative blurb III per HiLo48, Unknown-Tree, Estar8806 24.193.10.111 (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - local politics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would draw your attention to WP:ITNCDONT, specifically item #2. Just because it only directly applies to a single country is not a valid reason for opposition. - Nottheking (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like you missed the rest of the sentence? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , in my world, "local politics" covers the mayor, the city council, county supervisors and perhaps state legislators and the like, and issues within a relatively small geographic area. . The United States is widely considered the "world's sole superpower", and the "locale" it encompasses stretches from Nome, Alaska to Key West, Florida, a distance of 7,252 kilometers, and from Bangor, Maine to Kauii, Hawaii, a distance of 8,350 kilometers. The US has a population of over 330 million people. This is not a local matter. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure fine, domestic politics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If we are to consider that this position is analogous to the one of prime minister/second-in-command (actually third here?) in other presidential systems, the argument goes that we don't post those here at ITN (neither elections, including this, nor changes/drama thereof) and would be setting a bad precedent for a flood of such noms especially to do so based on internal party squabbles. Though further significance to this might be added if it does have immediate effective impact but so far all that has been posited is basically CRYSTALBALLing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I currently count 22x support, 20x oppose, and 2x wait, and no indication that this is leaning in either direction. Is there any chance we will reach a consensus, given how controversial this topic seems to be? Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Hopefully the closing admin will take into account the significant number of opposes that are based either on misstatements of policy or misunderstandings of how the U.S. system of government works. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like a consensus will develop in my (useless) opinion QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Government infighting which is front page news in non-US international media. 2607:9880:2D28:108:863:C4EB:4622:888F (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - In addition to being unprecedented, it’s being reported as a sign of fundamental instability in the party controlling one of the chambers of the legislative branch of government, and is already causing paralysis of that body’s functions. It’s equivalent to a mass protest event that disrupts a country’s governmental functioning or the removal of a head of government given that the U.S. government is not unitary and depends on the basic functioning of each constitutional institution to act. Also, I don’t think we should wait until McCarthy’s successor is chosen, because that could be weeks or months away. SS451 (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - This event is notable and has received front-page attention even from non US media, such as the BBC and CBC News. To state that it is "domestic" neglects the fact that almost all news is "domestic" in some sense. It isn't notable just because the guy left, but because he was ousted in a historic first, and the instability that it indicates for Congress. Let's not reduce this down to just "some guy got fired from his job." It's the most powerful person in the United States legislature losing their job to significant in-fighting in their own party.aaronneallucas (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Really, the "significant in-fighting in their own party" is the major news here. Do we normally post political party in-fighting? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Party infighting is playing a role, but it's hardly the major news, considering it has been going on for years. There is a lot more to this news item. Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment re blurb Based on some feedback this non-American is getting and some clarity I am finally seeing, I propose Alternative blurb IV: ​ In the United States, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is removed from office after eight rebel Republican members voted against him. This is the real issue here. Someone else will be in the Speaker's position in no time. It's not a constitutional crisis for the US. But the Republican Party is in a bit of a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support This is unprecedented and while it is for now local to the US government, the speakership is a huge deal here and this could have massive ramifications especially since US is playing a big role in the support of Ukraine. He's declined to run again as well, this might be local news but it is MASSIVE local news and I think it warrants posting. Jbvann05  04:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Unprecedented and historic first but no direct significant impact yet beyond mere speculation. StellarHalo (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Saying this will have huge ramifications is speculation, and ultimately this is just a squabble that doesn't involve the head of the executive and I can't imagine we'd even consider such a posting for any other country. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats Our readership naturally thinks this is a big deal and isn't waiting for ITN's permission. It's not just Kevin McCarthy that they are reading to understand the issue.  The related topics include:
 * Kevin McCarthy – 319,661
 * Matt Gaetz – 215,803
 * Patrick McHenry – 138,177
 * Speaker of the United States House of Representatives – 113,967
 * United States House of Representatives – 59,953
 * As McCarthy has said he won't stand again, attention will shift to the Speaker pro-tem, the election of another Speaker and the pending shutdown. Perhaps there's an umbrella topic which would be suitable for Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times you have already been told that the number of readers per article does not influence ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? It clearly affects notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be a factor for gauging reader interest but is really not a basis to judge ITN suitability (see for e.g. WP:POPULARPAGE). A comparision can be made with WP:TOP25 to see how that rarely corresponds with ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be the only metric we go off of, but if a current events item is getting a significant amount of readership then I believe that increases notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reader counts don't factor into notability at all. That's all about sourcing. M asem (t) 12:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's honestly bordering on disruptive at this point, as he continues to do so despite being repeatedly warned otherwise. The   Kip  16:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Per @Andrew Davidson PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I Oppose posting this on the basis that we dont normally post removals, and I'm not sure this is significant enough. Would definitely support posting the new speaker once they are sworn in as speaker (or however they are officially made speaker). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this counter-nomination.
 * --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Question The proposed blurb states this is the first removal of a speaker in the US (with supports also based on that aspect) but the article adds a qualifier that this is the first time it has happened during a Congressional session. I gather that the speaker has been removed before then just not through this procedure? Gotitbro (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the speaker has never been removed from their position by others in Congress before. Up until this week, the only causes that a Speaker would leave their office is that they either failed to win the next Congress' election for Speaker (typically because their party lost their majority) or that the Speaker resigned, or died in office. There can be considered the strange outlier scenario where there has been (brief) vacancies of the Speaker stretch out as the election took multiple ballots. (Most recently between January 3 and January 7, between the end of Nancy Pelosi's term as speaker during the 117th Congress, and the eventual election of Kevin McCarthy after 4 days and 15 ballots.)
 * This is the first time that the Speaker's office has been vacant by any means other than a normal speaker election (after the end of a prior term of Congress) resignation, or death. - Nottheking (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. Just domestic political drama that will have little to no effect on the outside world. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just like the Canadian House of Commons Speaker resigning in the same week, there are bigger ITN items than this. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 12:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Such as? You can't just oppose an item by blanketly saying "there's other stuff we can post." — Knightof  theswords  12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ^^ PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to read this argument. Is it that we should post more content overall? Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with 331dot. While Kevin McCarthy is not the leader of the world or the country, his removal as speaker of the House of Representatives is getting much news coverage and it's the first kind of thing to happen in the U.S. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with 331dot. While Kevin McCarthy is not the leader of the world or the country, his removal as speaker of the House of Representatives is getting much news coverage and it's the first kind of thing to happen in the U.S. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. This is unprecedented, and while an argument can be made as to how really notable it is, it's the first time this has ever happened and it's also getting a ton of news coverage. Important enough for ITN, even. River10000 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted - I'm seeing a weak consensus above to post. There are a few more supporters than opposers, and ITN's guidelines call for giving less weight to people who oppose because an event is happening in a single country. In addition, I gave less weight to opposes based on "he can return" given the later news that he will not be. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * this is a long discussion and there’s not a clear consensus. Posted too soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ed very clearly explained his assessment of consensus, which is WP:NOTAVOTE but a weighing of arguments. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since some of my thoughts are about what was posted, I’m going under the reply section of this:
 * Support Blurb; Post-Posting weak oppose. I think that this should be posted since the role is an important one in American federal legislative government. Granted, it is not like the Prime Minister of Parliamentary country (which some people have been saying), but it is a crucial cog in the government. This is also the first time that a Speaker has been removed from office by the representatives, which is notable. On two lesser notes (that don’t need to be talked about much), the cause and result of this are intriguing to the U.S.’ government, and, additionally, the speaker is 2nd in line of presidential succession. With all of this, I think a blurb should be posted. However, I think it should be mentioned that this is the first time this happened in US history. For example, “In the United States, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is removed from office: the first in the role’s history.”; it’s not crucial, but I think it should be noted so it doesn’t act Americentric. Kybrion (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per everything above. Trying to counter systemic bias does not mean killing all US stories, IMO these should be treated the same as European countries <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Was there any consensus for this current blurb? The current blurb reads as if McCarthy was removed from his position as a Representative, which is not the case. He was only removed as speaker. Jbvann05  18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The specific decision on what blurb to use is often left to the posting admin, as most people don't support/oppose specific wordings. In this case, there were a few people that specifically supported alt3, so I posted a slightly shortened version. I have no objections to any changes, but the process for that is WP:ERRORS. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. That it's front page news across the US should really be enough to demonstrate significance, but let's put that aside. While it's not front page news everywhere in the world, it is in enough countries to demonstrate global significance (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Spain), which makes sense, because Speaker of the House is the #3 leader in the US (behind Pres and VP), and it's the first time in history the Speaker has been ousted. Glad to see this was reopened and posted. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was ever closed actually. And considering how toxic things can get around here, this was one of the more drama-free and productive debates. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was closed and reopened. Though this is already posted and closed, for posterity's sake, let me update my post with more links. Another day has passed, and this story is still front page world news. Front-page, above-the-fold photographs in China, three German papers, and India. Above-the-fold without a photo in another Indian paper, Israel, and Japan. A front-page, above-the-fold editorial in Switzerland. Front page below-the-fold photographs in another Chinese paper, another Israeli paper, Italy, and the UAE. Front-page, below-the-fold without a photo in Austria, France, and the Philippines. These are all October 5 publications; that's in addition to the October 4 publications I posted above; and this for an event that occurred on October 3. It seems beyond dispute that this met the significance criteria of ITN. ITN voters should look at world front pages, rather than their own internal opinions, when determining significance criteria. That might mean leaving the ITNC nom open for 24 hours after the event so that we can all see how the world's reliable sources treat the significance of the event. This nomination ended at the correct result, and it also provided a lesson about the nomination process. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment re blurb Given how much information has been presented in the discussion above, the posted blurb is ridiculously shallow. It needs to say something about WHY he has been removed. I'm one of those 95% of people in the world who isn't American, and without having seen this discussion, would have no idea that this is really about the Republican Party being in a big internal dispute. Three of our four proposed blurbs mentioned the budget dispute, two mention the Republican Party, yet none of this made it to the Main page. A couple of times above I listed some questions of mine, and some fine editors helpfully explained the answers. These issues included - How was he removed? (Physically?) Who removed him? (Maybe there was a coup.) Is it the end of US democracy as we know it? What happens next? This is a complex matter, but not a hint of that is in our published blurb. Why not? (At least we didn't have him "ousted" in the published blurb.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think the phrasing of "removed as Speaker" does not imply being overthrown in a coup - if this were some big violent event, that would be the story. I think it'd be okay to try to fit in a little more info, but the blurb is just a blurb after all, there's not enough room to answer all of the questions you posed. That's what the article is for. <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> 💙 22:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat - Three of our four proposed blurbs mentioned the budget dispute, two mentioned the Republican Party. Neither fact made it to the published blurb. Even one of those facts would help, ideally both. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak support I really was about to reflexively oppose, I was honestly surprised when I checked Wikipedia today and saw this was posted. I asked myself if there would be any shot we'd post a speakership ousting in any other country, even if it were the nation's first. But then I read this entire long-winded mess of a conversation and I was actually persuaded by some of the support !votes. Sometimes even us Americans need reminding that the speaker in the US is not analogous to the speaker in other countries. It really is the closest thing we have to a prime minister; the job of the American speaker is to serve as de facto leader of the party in the House and to outline and advance their party's legislative agenda, and they are vested with enormous power over the legislative body to accomplish this. Then there are the usual rationales like global coverage, front page news, ITN's purpose, etcetera. While I do still understand the impulse to oppose this one - I felt it myself - I honestly think it's fine that we posted it. <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> 💙 22:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this opinion. ❤History  Theorist❤  00:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The most recent close analogy that comes to mind would be the resignation of UK Prime Minister Liz Truss during the government crisis almost a full year ago. There wasn't an attached general election, but it was clear that it was unusual & earth-shaking enough that it got posted: there was virtually no substantive opposition to quickly posting the resignation to the front page. Likewise, four days later we posted to the FP again when Rishi Sunak was became Party Leader and thus Prime Minister; worth noting that in the latter case, it was a victory by default, (as Sunak had been the only active candidate for the position) but still significant enough to post.
 * At that point last year, it was pretty self-evident to most editors that these were really major, unusual events that had significant implications, and this is why it was all over the news. And the same goes for the events on the other side of the pond this week. - Nottheking (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Canada and the United States are both changing who the Speaker of the House is this week. In neither case does this deserve a blurb. Have we ever seen a dispute between the House and the Senate where the House got its way? McCarthy and Pelosi before him had remarkably powerless positions. The tradition of putting a big spotlight on them in the American media is convenient to those who don't really want the voting public to be well informed. Connor Behan (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Canada's speaker has much less power than America's. The US Speaker of the House has much of the legislative (but not executive) powers of the Canadian Prime Minister. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The USA does not use a Westminster-styled Parliamentary system. Thus while the phrase "Speaker of the House" may be shared, they are not the same sort of position. This would be like saying that the President of the United States isn't a meaningful position just because they're not the Prime Minister. The analogous position to the Speaker of the House of Representatives is, in fact, the Prime Minister. The chief difference with Westminster systems is that in those, there is no separate, powerful President, and the upper house (Canadian Senate, UK House of Lords, etc.) have little power. While "Speaker of the House of Commons" is a ceremonial role, "Speaker of the House of Representatives" is the presiding officer who controls the flow of bills through the chamber. Likewise, while "Speaker of the House of Commons" is a non-partisan role, "Speaker of the House of Representatives" is in fact very partisan, and traditionally always held by the leader of the majority party in that chamber: 100% in parallel to the Prime Minister in Westminster systems. - Nottheking (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I wasn't clear. As an American who is glued to politics, I'm very well aware of how the government works, and I think we are saying the same thing. I'll clarify above. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies; my reply was meant to be towards the same person you were replying to. For some reason Wikipedia's reply/formatting system is confounding me, and indented my reply to make it look like I was replying to you rather than Connor. - Nottheking (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the differences between a presidential and parliamentary system. And one of them is indeed that the American Speaker has much more power over the house than the Canadian speaker. But this is not as meaningful as it seems because of the second point I made which is repeated in your sentence "the upper house (Canadian Senate, UK House of Lords, etc.) have little power". The least powerful person in the U.S. Senate is roughly comparable to the most powerful person in the House of Representatives. Connor Behan (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * PP Support given the continued front-page news coverage and the historic nature of the event. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment/observation While I already given my support earlier, I've noticed that there's also been a lot of confusion over the rational being argued here. Namely, I see a situation where people are conflating the standards for ITN and ITN/R. The standards used for the latter are pretty clear, that it only covers the outright sole "head of government/head of state" changes. Which (for non-hereditary positions like monarchs) usually coincides with an election. And it's the standard that top-level elections for every independent country in the world (yes, including for the United States House of Representatives, not just the President) merit an ITN/R position: that each occurrence of them is considered automatically notable enough for ITN.
 * However, this is not an ITN/R proposal; no one is suggesting that every speakership election should be ITN. (e.g, that it be ITN/R) After all, there is already an associated ITN/R for that: the preceding House of Representatives election.
 * However, as we can clearly see, ITN gets filled with lots of events that are not ITN/R: they don't need to be re-occurring in order to be considered notable. These are events that are unusual & impactful, so trying to argue that as a nominal re-occurrence of something isn't noteworthy discredits an unusual occurrence is off-mark. It'd be akin to saying that an asteroid impacting Earth and causing a significant explosion isn't newsworthy just because asteroids make close approaches all the time.
 * Many people are correct to point out that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is not parallel to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in fact better matches the office of Prime Minster. Yes, there are some differences in powers, but these aren't due to it being not the analogous office, and more to the fact that the UK & other countries use a Westminster System, but a Presidential System, so that the United States House of Representatives holds no executive powers, only legislative. And the Speaker in the USA most certainly does wield leading power in that chamber; they are not a "ceremonial office;" they are also inherently partisan (as the leader of the chamber's majority party) and also are allowed to vote. (something that a House of Commons Speaker does not do!)
 * So, we do have a strong precedent for posting & keeping this, where we had an intra-party kerfluffle at the highest level of legislature: the resignation of Liz Truss from the office of UK Prime Minister just under a year ago, followed by the election of Rishi Sunak to succeed her. Normally, the House of Commons voting in their Prime Minister isn't considered particularly newsworthy: the real news was already resolved with the general election (that elected said Parliament) on a prior date. However, it was abundantly clear that these were unusual events, and in both cases, they were posted to the front page under ITN with little opposition, even though no votes (be it even of MPs, or Conservative party membership, let alone the general public) were held; Sunak won by default by being the only valid candidate on the ballot. (thus precluding a vote)
 * Much like that scenario, there's a parallel here: we consider US Congressional elections ITN/R, same as with the national/federal-level legislative elections of every nominally-democratic country. Procedural/internal party votes for their officers is normally not significant at all, but as we can see... Sometimes unusual exceptions happen! - Nottheking (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Bed bugs infest Paris

 * The target article doesnt have the word Paris until the reference section where Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London is cited. Beyond that, doesnt really seem like "news". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that Paris is hosting the Olympics in 2024 does not make a bedbug outbreak more notable. I am finding it difficult to take this nomination seriously. But assuming it is genuine, oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not suitable for ITN (in addition to other issues, like it not having its own page). Johndavies837 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was in Paris briefly last weekend; I didn't notice any bedbug-related panic. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Friends of mine are going to Paris the weekend after next lol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per above. Seems like a non-story anyways, only really gaining traction because the French government is paranoid about something derailing the 2024 Olympics PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The news cycle is not that slow that we start posting one of the most common health issues which adds nothing to it (CRYSTALLBALL as for any effect on the Olympics). Does not appear to be a convincing nomination either. Gotitbro (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, WTF was this person thinking when nominating this, this is so small and so absurd to nominate, if this happens in any other city that was not hosting or soon to be hosting an Olympic games, no one would attempt and/or even think to nominate this, it is absolutely not newsworthy.  4me689  (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Nobel Prize in Physics

 * Comment: the fact that Pierre Agostini page was created today means that there is a lot of work to do.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Bothj Agostini's and L'Huiller's articles need "Research focus" or a similarly titled section to explain the body of their work, beyond what they were just awarded for. Krauzs' needs to be updated with Honors and Awards in the body as to call out, at least, the Nobel. And as noted, Agostini's is ways away from being ready, as it only has one secondary source so far. --M asem (t) 12:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose First two are short but adequate, lattermost needs slightly better sourcing. The   Kip  16:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Krausz's article is a ways away - the bulk is sourced to his papers, which is not appropriate here. The other two are basically sufficiently ready to go. --M asem (t) 12:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard McSpadden

 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russ Francis

 * Oppose The article is currently orange-tagged, the referencing needs some work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 9 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready. Article has been extensively cleaned up by Tails Wx. Flibirigit (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Lee (footballer)

 * Support Looks well-cited to me; I don't see any issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Medicine

 * Support as this is a huge discovery.Elisecars727 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The discovery happened a few years ago, this is only the Nobel Prize for it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, but this is still kind of a big deal. Elisecars727 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support articles look okay - I just resolved the sole CN tag on Karikó's – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Quite possibly the most important award in the world. Articles look good. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Articles are sufficient but Kariko's DoB is unsourced, which should be fixed. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Karikó's has one "better source needed" tag and one statement summarizing the research that should sourced, but both articles are otherwise good. --M asem (t) 12:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR and article looks ready to go. The   Kip  13:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, it looks like something that is put on ITN.  4me689  (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Both articles look good. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 15:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Articles look good, recurring. &mdash;siro&chi;o 15:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking good. Can anyone capable, attempt at creating a composite of image of the two winners? Masem indicated that they are busy off-wiki. Ktin (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Or just Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó Life Science Medalists.jpg? --GRuban (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got that running through image protection right now M asem (t) 00:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support articles look fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. Since no other admin seems to be around, I've taken the unusual step of posting my own nomination, given the unanimous support.  Sandstein   17:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with the posting. I would have done it myself if I'd been checking ITN. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto. No issues here. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patricia Janečková

 * Oppose several uncited claims, including a claim apparently about the film Once Upon A Time In The West which makes little sense. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have opposed too, because this isn't ITN material, but the claim about the film music makes perfect sense to me. This may have been her signature song. Renerpho (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, most of the missing citations have been added. Double sharp (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have further improved the citations. Quality seems sufficient for RD. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jim Caple

 * Oppose The article is a bit too short and is a stub. There's also one cn tag. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with less than 180 words of prose. Anything else to write about this guy? Please expand this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Wakefield

 * Needs ref improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We're getting it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks pretty good. RIP Tim. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ryder Cup

 * Comment. Not fit as it stands. Lead needs expanding with a decent summary of the event. Also needs prose for each session on Saturday, as well as Sunday, and refs for Friday. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've expanded the lead, but the other work still needs doing, especially sourcing. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as well as on the general proposition that there's far too much sports on ITN/R listing This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are between 50 and 55 sports ITN/Rs per year. That's one per week (and not all of those get posted because they're not up to quality standards).  I don't think that's overkill.  What you do get is clustering of events at certain times (as currently - the same thing happens around May/June time) which makes it appear that there are far more. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - referencing looks good now and seems like there is enough prose ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like there’s an adequate amount of prose now. The   Kip  16:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It's good that prose has been added to the lead, but it should be added to the Sunday section too. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Speedway Grand Prix

 * Weak Oppose - is this ITNR? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it does not appear to be. - Indefensible (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be a good candidate though. Why the oppose though? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is almost entirely tables. The   Kip  04:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs much more prose, mostly tables. It'd be great to see a speedway article on the front page, but the quality is nowhere near good enough. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if there is a prose update, the interest isn't there. Some other sporting events you may not heard of may even had better pageviews than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Teatre nightclub fire

 * Oppose. Teetering on WP:NOTNEWS. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The death of 13 people in tragic circumstances is routine news according to you? Wow. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He could have put it in a more respectful way, but as unfortunate as it is, events like these are relatively routine. ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what I wrote. But regardless, personal emotions shouldn't change our approach to ITN or notability. described it in a more diplomatic way.  Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is any of this in any way "routine"? It's in the news around the world as an unusual rare (and tragic) event Abcmaxx (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against posting, but nightclub fires are not particularly rare occurrences, owning to a combination of generally poor building codes, pyrotechnics, overcrowding, etc. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An answer to "ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker" could be that we need to nominate and post a wider variety of content more often. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When is the last time a nightclub fire with tragic consequences in a health and safety conscious country like Spain occurred? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- This type of event is not common. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. And the article seems quite thin as the cause and details of the fire are not known. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not for news coverage, it's for encyclopedic coverage. Likewise, ITN is not for news stories, it's for encyclopedic subjects that happen to be in the news. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We currently have the Qaraqosh wedding fire posted, and actually nightclub fires are rare contrary to comments above. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , List of nightclub fires only includes notable fires. Just in the past couple of months, there were nightclub fires in Arkansas, Scotland, England, Alabama, North Carolina, Cambodia, and Texas, as well as likely many more. Now, all of these but the one in Cambodia had no deaths involved, but the assertion that these types of fires are rare simply because our article doesn't list them is incorrect. Curbon7 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of those were former nightclub fires, to be fair. Whole other ballgame. Still, bit extraordinary how it was the third time for Kitty's (Scotland) this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the Colectiv nightclub fire, which resulted in 64 deaths and the resignation of Romanian prime minister Victor Ponta, is a very good standard for posting. This fire is far from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. A tragedy, but not on the level that typically merits blurbing. The   Kip  16:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Cauvery water dispute protests

 * Comment That's not a blurb that's just the first sentence of the article that got copy-pasted. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 13:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a new blurb Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait. Protests, just because they are protests, are not always ITN-worthy. For now, there is nothing to suggest that they will have a noticeable transcendence and impact.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The triggering event appears to have been in August 2023, and while there are ongoing protests, the scale of them seems small, compared to last big one in India, the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. --M asem (t) 13:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the article doesn't indicate the scale of the protests; do we know the scale of this? Abcmaxx (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above; the article's also in dreadful shape. The   Kip  04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose indeed, the article is in a poor state.  Schwede 66  06:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: A.K.M. Shahjahan Kamal

 * Not ready Still a stub, needs expansion. The Bengali Wikipedia article is longer. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with less than 100 words of prose. Anything else to write about this guy? Please expand this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 NRL Grand Final

 * Oppose Needs a prose summary of the match. Some sourcing work is also necessary, some unsourced statements and some of the end of paragraphs sources only source part of the paragraph. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The match summary section is entirely unsourced and full of peacock phrases and bad wording. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bcp. The   Kip  16:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Richie Poulton

 * Support Seems pretty good. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article includes no information about his area of research, for which it appears he has received numerous awards.  Spencer T• C 04:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer: According to this article, "he is undoubtedly best known for his leadership of the Dunedin study". (In an act of OR, I also went through a few of his most-cited articles, which were multi-author works based on data from said study.) His leadership of this longitudinal study is already mentioned in the first sentence. Would you prefer something more specific? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The body of the article should include at least a paragraph summary of his research work. What is the Dunedin study? What were Poulton's specific areas of interest within this?  Spencer T• C 04:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Slovak parliamentary election

 * Comment As there is no majority winner, they will have to form a coalition, which will take time. We do usually mention which party won the plurality in the blurb. In any case, a section on the aftermath is needed in the article. --Tone 08:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but Oppose Blurb 1 The term hung parliament is mostly used in the UK, not in countries like Slovakia where a single party almost never wins an outright majority. In fact, searching for Slovakia + hung parliament on Google News shows only 2 results, both from the UK. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support; neutral on blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, needs more content on the campaigns and the aftermath. The "issues and developments" section is the only prose outside the lead describing the election at all and mostly now looks like outdated speculation. Proposed altblurb3 for simplicity. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per filelakeshoe; very little prose and too table-heavy. If/when improved, support ALT3. The   Kip  17:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Reed (Canadian football)

 * Oppose There’s a lot of unsourced info, work is needed on the sourcing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The section on his CFL career is unsourced. There are also a few {cn} tags in other parts of the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, , I've added references, and the article looks referenced. Only one citation needed tag remains, though it should be sufficient for a RD post. Tails   Wx  02:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)