Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2022

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

(Posted) RD: Rick Redman

 * Posted Stephen 22:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marvin Powell

 * Support good to go.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dan Wieden

 * Support Looks good. Just Do It. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A little on the short side at 367 words, but that's fine for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just did it.--PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Antonio Inoki

 * Oppose — I'm sure others will bring up the usual bulldada concerning the mere presence or absence of citations, so I'll address another concern. The most glaring problem with the article is the coverage of his professional wrestling career, which is more a scattershot series of unconnected statements than an accessible overview.  It provides little to no hint of Inoki's global impact or his approximately two-decade stint as the top star of one of the planet's biggest wrestling promotions, both of which were significant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bulldada? -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I agree with RadioKAOS. Aside from the citations it needs, the article is also seriously lacking in content. I was surprised to see how short it is right now, considering Inoki's considerable stature in professional wrestling both in Japan and internationally. For example, there's only seven paragraphs in a section that covers over 30 years of his career. The article needs a lot of work, and if that could be done, I'd support a RD listing. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it wasn't for the amount of work the article needs, I'd say that Inoki might be blurb-worthy. He was a massive cultural figure in Japan and probably the most famous wrestler there of his era. He also founded what is currently the biggest wrestling company in Japan and was a long-time politician. Does being one of biggest name wrestlers in a country where wrestling is immensely popular qualify? I don't know, but it's probably worth a discussion. -- 207.164.44.162 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely you must be sarcastic? Spman (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been here long enough to know how this works, . If someone who has an article dies, they're eligible for RD, unless someone nominates that article for AFD. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be opposition to the proposal that he’s blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD in principle once expanded, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Support RD in principle" means absolutely nothing. In principle, we'd post the article of every person who dies on RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was that your !vote is completely worthless. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, Inoki would definitely qualify for a blurb. Regardless of whether you view his field as athletics or entertainment, he was at the top and one of the most transformative figures with a significant impact on multiple continents. It's a shame that the article quality doesn't reflect this, but I'll support a blurb in principle and oppose on quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I did take a look, but this needs so much work that I wouldn't even expand.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reminder There can be only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Marlar

 * Support - provides sourced coverage of both main areas of his life -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état

 * Weak Support. Article is in early stages but looks good, however I'm not sure if this is important enough news. &mdash; Rooves 13 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support - as a change of government leader in a sovereign state, this is certainly "important enough news" as it's covered by WP:ITN/R. I also don't think we've ever rejected a successful coup before. The article is quite barebones at the moment but the main points probably there. Some reactions maybe and consequences would be useful but I guess it might be too early to know that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Upgrading to regular support. I think this is good to go. There isn't much reaction from the world yet, and I've added a note about the human rights president in the country. I think this is good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Much' reaction from the world seems unlikely, given Faso's recent history. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait to see if the coup holds or if any further developments occur. - Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for what exactly? Reliable sources are reporting that there was a coup and that a change of leadership has occurred. We don't need to apply CRYSTAL to that in thinking something might change. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the second coup in BF this year. M asem (t) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should go into Ongoing, since something of this sort seems to have been in frequent delicto for quite some time. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems like a notable enough international event, even if the situation is still developing. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 13:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It’s ITNR, notable and article looks good enough to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I believe we normally put successful coup in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Second-cycle coverage:  – Sca (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

 * I imagine this is why many didn't want to post a one-off story on the conflict. Do you propose readding it to ongoing when that blurb falls off? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably it would still be ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - While we often wait to post 'ongoing' until after the inciting event of the ongoing situation has moved off the list, and remove things from 'ongoing' if we post a story that marks the conclusion of the ongoing situation, this is neither of those. The war is still going on, and the current headline is only one part of it - just a part of such signficance that it also gets a headline. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Worst time to remove the blurb, the conflict is going back to February/Marh 2022 levels of tensions. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of an item that absolutely refuses to leave the front pages in world journals. --  Ohc  revolution of our times 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The invasion is clearly still ongoing, there is no reason to remove it just because a substory has been blurbed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Amakuru. &mdash; Rooves 13 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just because Russia announces the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, doesn't mean the invasion isn't still very much an ongoing story. DJMcNiff (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor López

 * Support GA, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Needs more sourcing at Héctor López. I have concern that the section is WP:OR based on WP editor combing through "firsts" from stats database queries. With long-standing unsourced text on well-visited WP, there is also concern that a source is WP:CIRCULAR, and just mirroring "facts" already on Wikipedia. Care should be taken that a cited source mentioned the fact before WP introduced the unsourced material. The text in questions seems to have existed at least since the 2008 version that was listed as having been promoted to GA. It was only mostly sourced to a stats site, even then.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section needs help before GAR comes up for sure. I'll take a deeper look. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted that whole section, except for the sentence about him having two children, which was misplaced. I've made other edits as well, so please reassess. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose. I'm not surprised that the section was not salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Kabul bombing

 * Weak support once expanded - This one seems to be getting more news coverage than the others, and just passes the notability test in my opinion. That being said, it would be laughable to post an article with only a single sentence, as this one currently is. Quantum XYZ (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Obvious reasons Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Education centre" is a better descriptive and per sources, "training centre" is ambiguous. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on merits, oppose on size I'll fully support this when it's expanded and no longer a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily important enough & the article is sufficient. Alt blurb, because the original blurb makes it sound like the target was a military facility. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, The article needs some work, but with this number of losses it should be in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Remove "ready". At this time, the article does not have "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" (the minimum requirement for depth per WP:ITN).  Spencer T• C 02:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per support reasons above. Dhio (talk?) 09:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Narrative text totals 190 words, i.e. stub territory. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough substance. Short page padded by "Reactions" section masquerading as Wikiquote.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba and Sca. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Akissi Kouamé

 * Support - The article appears comprehensive and sourced, and the person certainly adds to the breadth of coverage -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Primo

 * Comment: The 2 sentences related to Marie Torre in the intro seem out of place and Torre isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, good depth of coverage, and conditional support when that is addressed.  Spencer T• C 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done – removed because I could not find any reliable sources to verify the info. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 02:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added a {cn} tag for the origin of "EyeWitness News". --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Bloom. --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonard A. Cole

 * could I please trouble you to have a look at this? It seems to have gotten buried among the other noms. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, Bloom. No troubles at all. Long enough with 600+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig doesn't have much complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

 * Good faith submission, and the "results" of the referendums seem to be clear now. The article looks solid, and in that respect I have nothing against this being posted. Excellent work on it. But the legality and genuinity of the referendums is obviously the big talking point. I think I'll give this a support. Coverage in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article on this subject is currently limited, so the readership will be very well-served by this article, and it's obviously major news with all news agencies. The blurb needs work. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – The annexation article needs a lot more work before it becomes suitable for posting. ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Russian annexation is set for Friday, and we should wait for it to occur. See AP BBC Guardian Reuters DW – Sca (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until the formal annexation on Friday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. This was already discussed a few days ago (under 23 Sept below) - the consensus was to wait until annexation actually happens, then reconsider. That will be Friday at the earliest. I suggest closing this nomination, which is premature. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not realizing this wouldn't actually be completed until tomorrow in my first comment above. The article should probably make this clearer. Right now it's only listing all of the results. I agree that this discussion should be temporarily closed until the correct date. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt4 is the one to use, when this actually happens. But that bolded article needs major work and is currently the subject of a move discussion. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once annexation takes place. Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... when it's a done deal. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So are we taking the stance that Wikipedia will declare in its own voice that the referendums were sham elections? (I proposed Alt3, by the way.) 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather that than that we provide publicity cover for war crimes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not be trying to characterize the referendums, though we can mention something like "widely considered illegitimate" M asem (t) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If I introduced my son to you as "widely considered illegitimate", wouldn't that characterize him as a bastard? Well, it should. Same deal here, approximately enough (if a reader looks even slightly into the lead, they'll know what "we" want them to think). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the alt blurbs. Mentioning the referendum requires us to characterize it, and that opens a can of worms. The news is the declaration itself. The original blurb is somewhat inaccurate in calling them "occupied" as the annexation also applies to unoccupied areas. Perhaps "portions of Eastern Ukraine" threads the needle.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4 - Annexation is the main focus, and the occupation regimes are hyperlinked. No need to hyperlink Russia, Ukraine or oblast, that's not usually done. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - until it actually happens, when it does it should be Alt 3. Alt 1 & 2 violate WP:NPOV so theres no way those can be posted (though Alt2 would be ok without the "so-called"); the original and alt 4 lack context.✨  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have what he's having. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4. We shouldn't mention the fake referendums where people were forced to vote at gunpoint and did not include the population that fled the Russian advance- or if we do mention them, it should be made clear that they are generally not recognized as free and fair(some say they are illegal under the UN charter). 331dot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once it happens. Would prefer AltBlurb 1. It's not a violation of NPOV to state that the referendums were widely condemned. On the contrary, reliable sources agree to call them sham referendums. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4 when it happens. Neutral on including the sham referendums under the condition we mention their broad denunciation.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For our Wikivoice, it seems best to term them "so-called," and let uninformed readers learn why from the article. ITN must maintain a tone of neutrality about controversial events. (This shouldn't be misconstrued as a personal notion that the referenda are anything other than modern-day Agitprop). -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. While "so-called" is not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED, it's tough to think of a better alternative besides explicitly terming it a sham in Wikivoice, and failing to mention the illegitimacy of the referendums or otherwise implying that real referendums occurred would violate NPOV per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. A subtle expression of doubt like "so-called" could be the best option.  Vanilla <b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they are called referendums by the Russians. So, "so-called" seems defensible. -- Sca (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine is not in good shape for posting, so we’ll probably have to wait until the article is improved even after the annexation formally happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support AltIV after official announcement. The annexing dwarfs the referendums that were (even from Russia's perspective) more or less a formality. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Putin signs decrees paving way for annexation of two Ukraine regions - Reuters <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> 💙 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt IV VI , although I would note that, strictly speaking, Russia has not demonstrated the ability to control that territory, so it could also say "announces the annexation" or "attempts to annex". BD2412  T 00:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurbs might give the reader the impression that Russia controls all the territories within the oblasts it announces it will annex. This is not completely accurate, since they are only in part occupied by Russia. For instance Russia does not control Zaporizhzhia, but would "annex" it through it being part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, but the blurb might make the reader think that Russia does in fact control all of the oblast. So I might replace the phrase "Russia annexes" with "Russia announces the annexation of", which would also clearly imply that this is a unilateral act on Russia's side. Gust Justice (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the intent is to annex the entire territory of the four oblasts so that the Ukrainian control of some parts could be considered aggression on Russian soil and the use of nuclear weapon would be justified. If they controlled the entire oblasts, they would've not rushed with these referenda.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Propose ALT5 based off above comment from Gust Justice and synthesis of other blurbs. We must be careful not to imply that Russia is doing this legally, nor that they control all of what they are claiming. The Kip (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that some of the "annexed" regions are only partially occupied by Russia (e.g. the capital/largest city of Zaporizhzhia is still Ukranian, and has been throughout this war), we shouldn't state that these are "Russian-occupied" without qualifiers (partially-occupied?). Something like "Russia declares to have annexed four Ukrainian oblasts"? Fram (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes more sense to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Alt 5 with the addition that they are partially-occupied oblasts. Clearly newsworthy above the usual level of the war, but also we must be clear that this is not even an approximation of a democratic process. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So something like: Russia announces the annexation of the partly occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.? Gust Justice (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added (with a minor tweak) as Alt6. Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was exactly what I meant. Support Alt 6, naturally. Well above the regular level of the war, and worth reporting. (For my part, I would also have blurbed at least some of the recent revelations of massacres, but that doesn't affect the issue here.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Annexation now official. Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Yup. AP, DW, AlJazeera, BBC, France24 – Sca (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Source Gust Justice (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 5 Formally done now, articles appear to be sufficient. Front page news in outlets and further major aggressive step. Brandmeistertalk  13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt4 ... as the best summary. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose firstly we should not be legitimising Russian propaganda and diplomatic blackmail; these are not real referendums in any way. If we start doing that we might as well post the 2022 Russian mobilisation or every threat of nuclear war Russia makes. Secondly this does not change anything in real terms at all; the 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive for example is much more impactuful and that was rejected on grounds that it is covered in ongoing. Which leads to the last point; we should be consistent. We can't reject every war-related story such as Izium massacre and the Azovstal offensive and now suddenly post this; highly inconsistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Suggest we post this as soon as possible, as it's bound to be the No. 1 story worldwide today. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – As I mentioned all the way at the top, the annex article is currently far from ready. I'd be alright with featuring only the referendum article instead, if ya'll are in a hurry. Blurb VI looks good tho. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's already in Ongoing; these referenda aren't so significant as to warrant a blurb. It's not even the first of these sham Russian referendums in Ukraine. If we're going to post a blurb about this war, there are more important events to blurb (like the Ukrainian counteroffensive, or the Russian draft and protests, or the UN's report on war crimes). Levivich (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The war is already in ongoing, and those fake elections do not really change much beyond adding an extra political narrative to it. Also, saying in the blurb that they are fake elections, and not saying so, both have their own controversies. Fortunately, we don't need to get into that mess, as we don't have to post every news headlines out there. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The target should be changed to Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine as this where the ITN significance lies and not on the referendums (as seen in the last ITN nom). Similarly either the blurb or altblurb4 should be posted without unnecessarily needling the issue of referendums. For editors worried about non-neutrality therein, "annexation" and "occupation" already make it clear that these are extra-judicial. This goes beyond ongoing in officializing the annexation of sovereign territory, similar to the Crimea conflict. Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Amended nomination in line with the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Superfluous, redundant. -- Sca (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Alt VI – This is a major escalation. I would suggest that ITN reconsiders its policy of not featuring major developments due to the invasion being in Ongoing. Other editors raise a number of things that weren't featured on that basis that probably should have been. Perhaps they can be featured for a shorter time, a matter of days? JackWilfred (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are describing is exactly what ongoing is for: an expectation that significant events related to the larger event will continue to occur. A building collapses, war crimes are revealed, Ukraine will apply for NATO, Putin will make declarations and threats. Ongoing does not minimize these events by denying them a blurb. Quite the opposite: it recognizes they are so significant we will feature them on the main page without even having a discussion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – FWIW, Already in German Wiki's ITN as: "Russian President Vladimir Putin announce[s] the annexation of the self-proclaimed "people's republics" of Lugansk and Donetsk, as well as ukraine's Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts." Also in French and Czech ITN listings. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: people here may want to chime in at Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) as a somewhat related discussion. Fram (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR appear to be written all over here, unlikely that any official Russian map or oblast statistics exist to this as of now. I doubt if even Russia is as fast as some of the fastest finger first editors here :|. Gotitbro (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This nomination is full of alt blurbs, can we develop a consensus on one? 213.233.108.109 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt6 as the only precise one so far. Support posting as a major, development in this war, far beyond what "ongoing" is meant for. Fram (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per fram Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To add now, Ukraine has formally applied to join NATO, which is being reported as part of the same story as this annexing. . --M asem (t) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Add Ukraine–NATO relations? —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. There's rough consensus to. I replaced "oblasts" with "regions" as a term that most English-speaking readers will be more familiar with.  Sandstein   18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove "after widely-condemned referendums" I believe there was rough consensus to exclude reference to them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly, "annexation", "occupied" provide enough context as is no need to further wikivoice the blurb (also annexation and not the referendums being the operative ITN here). Gotitbro (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post support of "widely-condemned" or similar. Many sites are calling it an "illegal annexation", no this seems like an WP:NPOV alternative.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * qualitative descriptors are subjective; thats the problem with "widely-condemned" ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral doesn't mean bland, it means apply WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Ukraine has applied for NATO membership. Dennis Dartman (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull either we develop guidelines for what developments in the war are nonetheless blurb-worthy, or we simply do not post anything at all while the war is in Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull The current blurb wording is not one of the listed ALTs and so there doesn't seem to be a consensus. This blurb gives the impression that Russia has achieved a fait accompil like Crimea while, on the ground, it is actually being pushed back in a significant way..It is therefore quite misleading.  The current uncertainty and pace of developments is more appropriate for Ongoing which is why we have the entry there.
 * Looking at how the blurb changed being about the announcement to being an actual annexation, it seems that this was done unilaterally for "balance". No discussion, no consensus, no balance. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with the current blurb, is legally the territories haven't been annexed yet, the Russian State Duma still has to rubber stamp the "treaties" before they can be officially incorporated into Russia... Expected to happen sometime between October 4-5. ✨ <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   21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose pulling – The existing blurb may not satisfy everyone, but pulling what continues to be a very prominent story would be amateurish and puzzling to readers. Suggestions for blurb changes may be made at ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Rowe (Exelon)

 * More than long enough with 700+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig doesn't have much to complain about. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This person's page didn't even have them in a deceased person category. In fact, it still had a living category attached to it. Shouldn't these things be checked and changed before being posted to the main page? His name was literally up there for hours without it being changed. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this, @Jkaharper. -- PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Gottesman

 * Comment: Some of the older REFs could use some refreshing. --PFHLai (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new REFs, Bloom. This wikibio is long enough (600+ words of prose), its formatting goods fine, there are footnotes where they are expected, and Earwig has no complaints. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der Bijl

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. As a sidenote, ref 14 works fine for me (despite having a permanent dead link tag). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Urbani

 * Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gavin Escobar

 * Support Referenced, good depth of coverage, marking ready.  Spencer T• C 01:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Coolio

 * Support - Well established and well known QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality Usual sourcing problems with filmographies. --M asem (t) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of his discography is sourced at Coolio discography. Will be working on the filmography through tomorrow I'm sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto, suggest Photo RD when ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose the idea of a photo RD but do you have any suggestion about which photo to use because the current one used in the article does not scale well to the smaller image size used in the ITN template. Regards So  Why  05:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I haven't, regular RD'll do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNPICT, the posted picture generally comes from a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any time that a photo RD has been done based on notability, rather than times where there wasn't an applicable image for one of the main ITN blurbs? But speaking of blurbs, I wonder if he would actually be blurb-worthy - I'd arguably say Coolio is almost a household name, although he's probably not up there with others like Snoop Dogg or Eminem. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything starts somewhere. Coolio, Eminem and Snoop Dogg are household names (at least in my neighbourhood). Unlike you, I see this as a point against a blurb, since more people who see them in RD would already know they represent American rappers who died at age x. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally like it, but he seems a bit distracted from the lens by a certain sumpin' new, and I know from growing up in a funeral home how tasteless that particular organ can appear in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once issues at filmographies are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update' I've sourced a lot of the filmography. But, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the other ones. Some of the sites coming up on a Google search seem sketchy, I'm not sure of their reliability. If IMDb were reliable, this would be fully cited. Remembering that ITN/C does not require every single item to be cited, and since I don't think anyone is challenging whether or not Coolio was in some short video that doesn't have a wiki page, the question is: is this filmography cited enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the sourcing is now at an acceptable level to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per Pawnkingthree and Muboshgu. Jusdafax (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support § Filmography much better sourced compared to the revision of the first oppose. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Plante

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. However, article is not stable at the moment due to a vandal who continues to blank sections of sourced content, despite repeated warnings not to do so. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, in fact the article is as of now locked down to all editing until Oct. 1, an admin action I have questioned on the article Talk page. I don't recall seeing this type of lockdown in nearly 15 years of editing here. Article now unlocked, my thanks to the admin in question. Jusdafax (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – still shortish but has been worked on and is ready as I see it, after some relatively minor back and forth on content. Jusdafax (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Ian

 * Wait — Landfall has not occurred yet, but is expected to in the next 2-4 hours. After that, support. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I added an alt blurb because currently, the impacts to Cuba are much more significant that Florida at the present time with the entirety of Cuba losing power. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just making that the blurb for now because it's better than what I wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet. Sarrail (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait ... as is de rigueur for developing weather events. Ian packs 155 mph winds, per AP report. Much Fla. fooding expected. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Question - why are we waiting for it to impact the US? It's no longer a "developing" weather event—it knocked out power to all of Cuba. Why not post that now, then update the blurb when it hits the US? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, call it underway, if that makes you feel better. Semantics. But reports indicate the storm's biggest impact on people is likely to be in Florida. That Fla. happens to be in the U.S. is circumstantial, and not a factor in terms of news value. -- Sca (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post weather forecasts. We post what HAS happened. And surely what happens in Cuba matters? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are people in Cuba not people? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Idiotic comment. -- Sca (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am also wondering why we aren't doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting and . Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I wrote. I was calling for a different, Cuba-focused blurb to be posted. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Damage to Cuba is significant too, and we can say "approaches Florida" if it's posted before it makes landfall and update the hook as it does. Landfall in Florida appears to be imminent at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hurricanes in the mid Atlantic during the summer-fall months making landfall and doing some damage or forcing evacuations is a routine news item. Its why Fiona wasn't posted. We're looking for the magnitude of damage which likely would be based on how bad Florida is hit. M asem (t) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fiona could still use revisiting, even if it's trending stale. 27 deaths at last check. This is why these hurricane noms getting posted too early is a problem - they get buried before the storm's full impacts are known. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not bump them to the top if the death toll is at least 10-20 higher than the last time it was bumped off the top? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What are the impacts to Cuba? That's more important than waiting around for whatever happens to Florida. When it makes landfall, we can update whatever blurb we posted for Cuba. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , : I just added an alt blurb for the Cuba landfall and impacts to Cuba. You guys want to post it just with the Cuba impacts until the US impacts are more clear, so let’s post that. Consider this a Support for the new alt blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Whatever comes of the landfall in Florida, this is going to be a very significant storm.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Take heed of the stormy weather" – ?? — Sca (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. We have to stop with these noms before we have any real damage reports or fatality numbers. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm all for having an uninvolved editor close this discussion so we can have a fresh one when we can actually make an informed decision about the notability. This one is already visually cluttered with predictable reactions to the premature nom. <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> 💙 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ”actually make an informed decision about the notability”…Guess 2 fatalities and an entire nation without power doesn’t make something notable enough for ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would like to point out, we have confirmed two fatalities and 11 million without power in Cuba alone. That alone should be enough to post a blurb, that then can be changed in the future (probably tomorrow) with the information about Florida. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't enough with Fiona. 2 is not minimum deaths material and we don't have any tangible number on damages yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A hurricane knocking out power to all of Puerto Rico isn’t uncommon (happened with Hurricane Maria in 2017 for example). But as far as I am aware, it is extremely rare for all of Cuba to be without power. Also, Puerto Rico was 1.2 million without power while Cuba is 11 million. Equivalent to all of a single US state (like Florida) losing power from a hurricane. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, it was a struggle to get a consensus to post the 2019 South American blackout which left nearly 50 million without power, though we eventually posted it. We don't know enough about the damage to Cuba yet. I don't believe in "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS", but there is a line somewhere, and there's not a chance of a consensus forming when only two casualties are confirmed. <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> 💙 18:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Loss of power is an inconvenience (yes, critical infrastructure like hospitals need it, but that exists everywhere) from such a major storm, so its not worth posting on that alone. M asem (t) 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just a loss of power from this storm, it's a loss of power for an entire country. That's unusual and worth posting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I do fully disagree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard about wanting to wait to post Hurricane Ian until it becomes more notable. For all intents and purposes, I feel like you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion and I am saying my opinion that I fully disagree with that assessment. Slightly funny. I originally !vote “Wait” for US landfall, get told it is notable enough to post based on Cuba alone, switch !vote to support on an alt blurb about Cuba alone, then get told to wait again for notability (aka US stuff). ITN nominations are always fun… Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion No, that's certainly not my opinion, and I ask you to strike that. I haven't even !voted, I just read the winds and came to the conclusion that nominating this when there are only two confirmed casualties was not the best idea. <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> 💙 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not the place to post unusual events like a country losing power. This is why we want something most definitive in terms of impact, like loss of life or scale of destruction. M asem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By that interpretation, even if Hurricane Ian became a category 5 at landfall, it would not be ITN worthy until either the death toll is higher OR NWS does initial damage estimates (after it dissipates). Sounds like ITN needs to have a long RfC to determine what "In The News" means. International coverage and hundreds to thousands of articles covering the hurricane, with a large portion commenting on the complete power loss to Cuba is clearly "In The News", however, from the def you just described, practically no storm could ever make ITN, unless a dozen+ people are killed. I do foresee myself starting an RfC in a few days on this topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is about good quality encyclopedia articles that happen to be in the news. We are not a news ticker, regurgitating what are headlines, And since most weather events like hurricanes can really only be judged on quality based on the scale of their impact, that limits every such storm being on the front page. M asem (t) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. We will be seeing the impact of Ian's devastation in the coming days and weeks.
 * — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That may be the principle, however, I personally know many ITN’s that were posted with less than what this article has. Yesterday alone, it got 22,000 views. I am betting nearly 100k or more today. If that truly is the ITN principle, then this RfC in the next coming days will be extremely interesting and possible precedent setting. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to play the “good quality encyclopedia articles” route, then Hurricane Ian 100% passes every possible ITN “good quality” checklist. An article I started, Zamfara kidnapping made ITN. Hurricane Ian as more international coverage, more article views, more bytes in size, more images, and is basically “more” or “better” in every possible way (even more deaths) than that kidnapping article, which made ITN. Stop stalling because you haven’t said a single reason that can’t be pushed back on why Hurricane Ian shouldn’t be posted to ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, based on that def, once NWS posts Ian's initial damage total, would that make it ITN (even if it ain't in the news anymore)? "Scale of destruction" cannot be judged during a storm that is ongoing, meaning you are considering only fatalities for ITN worthiness on a storm. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Masem, you know as well as anyone there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * By tomorrow you will be wondering why we hadn't posted this sooner. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale is similar to what Noah points out below. The landfall in Florida is expected to have as much if not more of an impact, so it makes sense to post when there's actual destruction to talk about. And on the hypothetic, if Ian turned north and later made significant damage in New England or Canada (to add to death toll perhaps) then we can update it if it was posted. But as it is with Ian, the "damage" that we have documented is mostly just the power failure which, in a hurricane, is not remarkable. M asem (t) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing It's still doing its thing, we can agree, whether we yet know how to word "its thing" into a few short points or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weather events do not make for good ongoing since they only last for days, not weeks. We only need to consider posting when reasonably full extent if damages are known. M asem (t) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with posting something for days? We sometimes do it with RDs. Way easier than us all agreeing on what constitutes a reasonably full extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The only time we did Ongoing was during Cyclone Idai when the search for bodies was continuing to uncover dozens to hundreds per day. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It already made landfall and may cause some casualties. Shwcz (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it made landfall in Cuba long ago. I hope that's what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Already had a big impact in Cuba, now made landfall in Florida. There are reports of 20 missing after a boat sank. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my support is based on knocking out power to an entire country. I dont really get how that isnt notable enough. An entire country's power grid was knocked out. Is it not important because it isnt the US or in Europe? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the impact is known. Will reconsider if significant fatalities and/or damage occurs.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So re-nominate in like 2-3 days (after it ain’t a Hurricane anymore)? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is normal, yes. Like any weather event, it'll probably be over by the time we know how devastating it was. That doesn't make it stale. "After it ain't a hurricane anymore" is the perfect time to post a hurricane blurb. <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> 💙 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still a fresh news story for a whole week after it dissipates. People shouldn't nominate here until fatalities have been confirmed. Even then, they shouldn't nominate for low numbers (ie 1,2,3,etc) since that's typical of any tropical storm. is right that too many storms either get shitty nominations when they aren't really all that impactful to society like what happened with Fiona for the record or have premature nominations when we have no idea what's happening in the affected regions like what's happening here right now. This makes it harder for those actually deserving to be posted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The death toll from Fiona is over 10 times higher, and it's not being posted after two attempts here. If that isn't notable, I don't see how this is. Ian doesn't even seem to be breaking any records yet either, unlike Fiona. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So one bad decision to not post something should directly cause another bad decision to not post something. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent Pacific typhoon (Typhoon Nanmadol) also wasn't posted; the death toll there was lower, but Ian is still a lot lower than Fiona - and unlike Fiona I don't see what records it broke. The only difference I see here is that Ian hit the continental USA. We have long since recognized there is massive BIAS in Wikipedia - but we do little to change it. Another example is the Gimbi massacre of over 500 people. Why that war isn't an ongoing I don't know. Perhaps we should rename In the News to In the American News. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * lol wut? Do you not recall the tribute to some old rich white lady that was the Main Page for a day last week? What does Cuba have to do with that anyway? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you know she was the most powerful woman in the world? Doesn't Nfitz know Fiona soaked the Maine part of America, too? Won't somebody think of just posting these? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - these ITN conversations and arguement are so ridiculous sometimes. Obviously notable (but how can we post it if we don't know how many people died???) and the article is good. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your point - did you see how much coverage there was on USA television about her majesty; are you suggesting that this was posted (despite being ITNR) proves there is no BIAS? Cuba would be a stronger point if the nomination preceded landfall on the continental USA. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - it looks like a pretty bad hurricane, and even if we don't end up including it on the main page, it's definitely impossible to deny that media coverage has ramped up significantly. Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems like it would've been nice if we had just put the hurricane season itself in ongoing... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks really great! Definitely well set up for ITN, well done :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In Florida, 2.5 million without power, one fatality reported.   – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As suggested by multiple editors, can we get an admin to close this nomination as “no consensus” so it can be renominated in a day or two once the fatality total is higher? (WP:OR - As daylight is breaking, storm chasers are reporting multiple new fatalities and authorities said “fatalities in the hundreds”). Waiting until the fatality count is higher for renomination is the best.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The nomination has only been up for a day. It's completely disingenuous to close this thread as "no consensus" especially when you yourself proposed an alt-blurb. And on top of all that, in the same breath mentioning that authorities are reporting "fatalities in the hundreds". If WP:MINIMUMDEATHS existed (which it doesn't) this would blow that threshold out of the water. Absolutely no to closing this as no consensus. God damn, let the process run a bit longer. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Calm yourself, mon ami – it's just weather. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly calm. Please don't ascribe demeanor to me based on written text. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We're not renominating this after the storm has passed. The storm hit yesterday. There were days of mandatory evacuations and yesterday was wall-to-wall coverage of the hurricane here in the U.S. Number of fatalities, total financial cost of the damage, will be figured out in due time. Is this not a newsworthy event with a high quality article? What are we even doing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with previous two. No reason to close this now as the storm heads out to sea -- but is predicted to make a second U.S. landfall Friday. -- Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously…I get told the opposite thing EVERY TIME I write a new !vote comment. Not a good blurb, let’s wait until fatality count, its notable on Cuba only, 11 million power outages ain’t notable enough, 1 fatality ain’t notable, its notable.  Dear God. I’m actually wishing I NEVER commented ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why you don't change your opinion based on what other people say. This is not a hivemind. Everyone comes to ITN with diverse differences of opinion on how this system should work. Speak for yourself and let an admin worry about interpreting consensus. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Support Alt Blurb for immediate posting. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen here in a while. News is subjective and messy. We all have our own views on when a story becomes notable, and that's okay. There's always a lot of peer pressure to use whatever metrics everyone else is using to determine notability, but everyone should always feel welcomed to think differently. <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> 💙 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per others. Was already notable enough after hitting Cuba, anything it does in Florida and beyond just makes it more so. Khuft (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major hurricane with massive international impacts and news coverage, and it's my view that waiting for some arbitrary number of deaths is, to say the least, poor ITN policy, so post the blurb and amend it as needful. Jusdafax (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I e added an altblurb to reflect the impact on Florida including death count. --M asem (t) 17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nit: Should it be "makes landfall s in Cuba and Florida" -- ?? -- Sca (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. And as a non-ITN regular, I have to say I find it rather incomprehensible that a hurricane that has impacted multiple countries isn't considered worthy of the main page, but a football championship in Australia is. Insert eyeroll emoji here! And I say this as a football fan and as someone who lives in Europe. MeegsC (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It no longer takes a crystal ball to know if Ian will be remembered as a catastrophic storm. The death toll is already rising and it's unfortunate that it's almost certain to go up. <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> 💙 18:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hundreds are feared dead. 98.116.128.17 (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, we have a good enough sense of the impacts at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, pretty big deal, and it's rather embarrassing that it's not on ITN at this point. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The massive death toll predicted above has NOT occurred. If this is justified now, it should have been posted when it hit Cuba. Posting it now will say we think it only matters if it hits the USA. A really bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , you do see that all three proposed hooks mention Cuba? Saying we should have posted it on Tuesday but today is too late makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's NOT what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I failed to notice the If this is justified now qualifier, which does change the meaning of what I thought I read. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I advocated for posting this when it hit Cuba from the very beginning. I still advocate posting it. ITN is a slow mover at times, and the storm doesn't discriminate as to which country or nationality it brings misery to. Your attempt to make this an issue of ethnic bias is in astoundingly poor taste. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention ethnicity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The subtext in your message is about as bright as a neon billboard. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * HiLo, posting it now isn't being US-centric when nearly 90% (14 out of 16) of the confirmed deaths so far are in Florida. <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> 💙 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be quite similar to the recent cases of Super Typhoon Nanmadol which hit Japan and Hurricane Fiona which hit Puerto Rico and Canada. They were nominated but not posted and so we should not post this either to maintain a WP:NPOV.  Perhaps we should just put something like Tropical cyclones in 2022 into Ongoing as it seems like there's a continuous stream of these things. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ongoing would be short-sighted. September is the peak of Atlantic hurricane season, but there are no other active cyclones in the Atlantic right now. The closest one is Post-tropical cyclone 11, which is just going to dissipate in the subtropical ridge without doing anything. <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> 💙 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it would be long-sighted because the timeline chart shows that there's always a significant cyclone somewhere on the globe. Just focussing on the Atlantic and then only posting when a hurricane hits the US is blatant Americentrism. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Andrew. Fiona killed 27 and we didn't post it; as far as I can see the death toll is currently less than that.  If it significantly increases then that is a separate issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If a storm blacked out power in the entirety of say Belgium (around the same population as Cuba), would that not merit mention here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is an inconvenience, not a disaster. Storms and other weather events knock power out all the time, so that us routine. Even at the given scale. M asem (t) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not routine for an entire countries power grid to be taken down by a storm. This isnt a neighborhood blackout. And it is likewise not merely an inconvenience. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me if you are opposing or supporting User:Nableezy. Over 3 million people in Puerto Rico alone lost power with Fiona. A quarter of a million STILL don't have power. In Canada over 100,000 lost power in Nova Scotia (many still don't have it back) - and probably about another 100,000 in the other 4 impacted provinces. If those aren't notable, then neither is this. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I supported up above. Would have supported Fiona too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If all that really happened (which I know isn't the case) was just the power outage, that's the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods and noone around to hear it - it impacts a large number of people but just as other storm systems can impact wide number of people like heat waves or cold fronts - which would encourage editors to want to post these non-events.  And until today, we really had no information on actual damages out of Cuba, in addition to the growing tallys from Florida. Now there's enough to start assessing this as a long term, enduring effect. ITN is reactive not proactive to news. M asem  (t) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fiona has been renominated on September 24, meaning it is not archived until 00:00, 2 October UTC. Until that time, unless the nomination is closed, Fiona can still be posted. The original nomination was when Fiona’s death toll was 6. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So confused by all the recent “Oppose” !votes. Here is my opinion. Anyone who voted against the Cuba only blurb prior to US landfall made a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because Fiona wasn’t posted is making a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because it is US centric is making a wrong choice (but still right that some !votes appeared US centric). Basically, this is a waste of time and those who 100% opposed a quick closure of “no consensus” earlier, you basically just doomed this discussion automatically to a no consensus without a good prayer of being renominated/posted.  God job y’all. (Even I am at fault for saying wait in the first place and not instantly adding a Cuba only blurb). Feels like everyone in this discussion has legit made some wrong choice which is dooming it to no consensus. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already a consensus to post. It's 15:5 support:oppose. Even taking into consideration that Wikipedia is not a vote, it's hard to deny that there is a consensus, and an overwhelming one at that. <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> 💙 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There seemed to be consensus at Fiona as well, and I don't see that posted either. Here's a thought - why not a single headline for both storms, which were near simultaneous. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, since Fiona is now posted on ITN. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My thought exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- can an admin please post this? There is quite obvious consensus. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, and this fiasco is a good example of why we should reform ITN and get rid of blurbs altogether. It doesn't matter if we say on the main page that Ian knocked out power to Cuba, or made landfall in Florida, or both, or neither. People aren't coming to the Wikipedia main page to find out the latest news about Ian or anything else. What does matter is that we have a link to Hurricane Ian on the main page, so that if people come here looking for that article, they get there faster, without having to search for it. All of ITN should be like RD: just links, no blurbs, no explanatory text, just links. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment That's actually a really good idea (with a caveat of explanatory text if the article name isn't obvious). Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The view counts show that readers are perfectly fine in finding the Hurricane Ian page without it being in ITN. This reenforces our standard that we want to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, and most of the opposes here were based on the fact that the full extent of the hurricane couldn't be documented until it passed over Florida, that is, the article quality wasn't going to be there until that happened. M asem (t) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Post ASAP. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted After initial comments to wait for landfall and damage reports, consensus is to post. Some opposers cited lack of consensus at the time for Hurricane Fiona, but it was later posted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Third landfall predicted today in South Carolina. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hilaree Nelson
Support, Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article reads fine and is in decent shape. Skynxnex (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Such a short article shouldn't have an unsourced filmography.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section has remained unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted after finding refs for the films. Stephen 22:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia

 * Oppose, my understanding is that he was the de facto head of government already, so becoming the formal head of government is no substantive change.  Sandstein   07:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news, unlike the election in Nauru. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't understand how Candidates works. Nauru elections are ITNR, the Saudi Arabian PM election is not. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose cosmetic change in order to grant diplomatic immunity to Prince Mohamed, who, to all intents and purposes, already rules on behalf of his father the King. Khuft (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cosmetic change indeed. Tradedia talk 12:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Not prominently covered. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who? Just kidding! But seriously, who cares who the Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia is. The post is largely ceremonial in an absolute kingdom. Shwcz (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Might've been more noteworthy if it wasn't just MBS taking on another title. <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> 💙 18:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just Mohammad bin Salman formally becoming head of government of Saudi Arabia. He was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia so basically ceremonial.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ceremonial and lacks any real significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not substantive development. Thriley (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sue Mingus

 * Support American record producer and band manager who died in a Manhattan hospital aged 92, article's mostly fine, aside from two versions of where and when she met Charles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Bussard

 * Support, but what the hell is the comment above?? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The user seems to be a vandalism only account, or lacks competence. I've removed the message and given them a 4im. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Kinda short, but I would have supported it if not for some unencyclopedic language like "had the collecting bug", which should be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * unencyclopedic language now removed. I've also added a bit more to his bio. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's fixed up and ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nord Stream leaks

 * Support major political event with possibility for environmental and/or economic trouble. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing at the moment to gauge its significance. Further, if the leak's relevance tangentially hinges on the war, ongoing is there. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Just one of those freak accidents, I suppose. It happens. No one died, so it's hard to weigh the significance of this. And we should be careful not to automatically impose a POV without concrete evidence. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We have no idea what this is all about. If more facts come to light and a bigger story develops, it will probably get its own article and we'll see then. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major political event of geopolitical significance and a possible escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that may bring in European powers. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as we are at "possible" and "may", this is not an event for ITN. I think we should stick to facts. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that there are three leaks in two pipelines alongside Denmark and that the Danish Prime Minister has said it may be sabotage and that Ukraine has accused Russia of doing it to aggress Europe. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment a new article titled 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been created by . Perhaps that article should be featured instead of the main one. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, It is not a major development now and still there is not enough information about it. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless proven to be wholly unrelated to the war, and still considered an act if sabotage, this either falls under the ongoing, or just the normal failing infrastructure department. --M asem (t) 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major infrastructure blowing up doesn't happen very often, so notable regardless of the cause. Even more so if it was sabotage, what increasingly seems like the most likely explanation. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * List of pipeline accidents suggests it happens quite often and most instances aren't notable by Wikipedia standards (for countless natural gas explosions, see List of explosions). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So according to these lists this is the first case of an underwater pipeline blowing up. As well as the first case of two related pipelines near simultaneously blowing up. In other words, an exceedingly rare and thus notable event. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, probably gremlins. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a troll post or are you just childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither; are you the long IP who removed it, the short one or both? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Both PM of Sweden and Denmark has held press briefings where they claim it's been an act of sabotage and not an accident. From a Global Politics perspective, this is a major geopolitical event. Swedish PM has spoken to the German Chancellor, Secretary General of NATO, Danish PM and EU commission. Manvswow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: NS2 never got final approval, and NS1 has been winding down for four months now. This just conforms to the trend, and needs greater significance for a post. 213.233.108.179 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Pipelines not in use get damaged, cause unknown" is not a notable enough item for ITN (Russia had stopped deliveries over NS1 weeks ago and NS2 was never in use). If (and only if) there are any further major developments because of these defects, we can then post those developments. Regards So  Why  19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major event with large environmental consequences, all over the news. The Article featured should be 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks which I added in the Alt blurb.✨ <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   21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Much improved, Your Majesty! If I may implore just one thing more, might ye see that "multiple" be "three"? And yes, I'm being childish here, not trollish and entirely serious about the whole specification request part of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. As already noted, neither pipeline is in operation so political/economic impacts are likely off the table as things stand, and environmental impacts do not seem as great as suggested judging by the article. Probably worth waiting a few days to see if any of this changes but as is I don't see this as significant enough to post (save for the fact that this is getting a lot of coverage, but a lot of the buzz is just individuals playing the blame game. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Iffy. – Sca (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Norway's drone alert seems significant too. Reminds me of the time in the Spanish Civil War when mysterious submarines started sinking ships in the Med. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless proven to be an act of sabotage not related to the current war. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – No longer iffy. Very widely covered, with several Baltic-bordering countries, plus the EU, condemning an apparent act of (state) sabotage. Favor Alt2 or something similar. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Suggest we avoid the verb "experience" as anthropomorphic. Inanimate objects don't 'experience' things, only sentient beings do. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not much volume going thru the pipeline even before this incident. So this is just another event in the slow death of the pipeline. Not important enough at this point to be its own ITN item independant from the ongoing Ukraine war item... Tradedia talk 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In Alt2, the word "state" would be optional. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * support unique, unusual, interesting, ACTUALLY IN THE NEWS. I'm kinda baffled by the responses of some of the other editors who oppose this on importance grounds (even though its the presence in mainstream news feeds that should be the actual criterion), but who then routinely vote for posting parliamentary elections in Nauru and similar exceedingly important news pieces.
 * Preceding posted by IP user 5.44.170.26. – Sca (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who gives a flip what's going on in Nauru! But on a more serious note, what is the exact significance you speak of that you believe is being overlooked? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The pipelines were not used, but the attack does have an economic impact. The expectation was that in the future they would again be used, and that kept the gas price on the futures market in check. Since the attack the price has risen. There is a lack of production capacity for gas, and even if Europe can import all the gas it needs, LNG is way more expensive than gas from Russia was even under normal conditions. Another reason for the rise in the gas price as a result of the attack, is that there is now the possibility that Russia will deal a truly devastating blow to Europe by taking out the gas pipeline from Norway, attack LNG terminals etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When you speak of the rise in the gas price, are you speaking of LNG, or the stuff Americans call gas? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support EU, NATO say Nord Stream gas pipelines were sabotaged. Significant political, economic, and environmental impacts. Widely covered in the news. <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> 💙 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No casualties. This seems to be just an extension of a war that is already ongoing. Shwcz (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - basically covered by the war ongoing item. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only thing is the Baltic Sea is about a thousand kilometres from the battle fields of Ukraine; and no warring party claimed responsibility for this attack. ✨ <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   23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject is not mentioned in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article at all, so it is not covered there. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a failing of the article, but sources are connecting the two. Eg NYTimes including it in its Russia/Ukraine coverage, same for WSJ. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Excellent work on the article on this subject. The fact that "the incidents are likely to put a permanent end to both Nord Stream projects" seems to automatically make this ITN-appropriate. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of if being a (potential) part of the War, it has also had a big impact on European economy (gas/electric prices) and a environmental impact. Pardy (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
 * It should be pointed out that at the point the issues were found, the lines had not be used for natural gas transport for months due to the way, the only leaks being from the residual NG left in the lines. M asem (t) 12:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sweden finds fourth large leak.   – Sca (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major international news story with significant coverage, support per Sca, Pardy and Maplestrip. Opposes fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with Jusdafax. Suggest we post this before it gets stale. – Sca (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A majority of users disagree with posting this, and any of them (including me) can say supporters fail to convince. Nobody seems to have given a reason why this should be independent of the current ongoing coverage of the war, with multiple sources connecting the two. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Very widely & prominently covered. -- Sca (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * SupportWidely covered and its impact on the energy market and prices is rather influential. Its not so much about the war between Russia and Ukraine war, but the impact on the energy market.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, support once tags are taken care of. I agree with the copy editing tag, so that one should be fixed; but I think the clarification needed tag was already pretty clear. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wong Phui Nam

 * Comment: The short paragraph in the Personal Life section on his family needs sourcing or trimming. (BLP vio?) --PFHLai (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed, given it isn't actually about the subject. CMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (700+ words of prose), its formatting looks fine, it has footnotes at expected spots, and Earwig has nothing to complain about. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you and for the additional cleanup. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support CMD has greatly expanded the article to improve coverage of the subject's works and views. Joofjoof (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Souder

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Committee assignments" section has just bullet-points. No prose. No sources. No idea what time frames the subject had each assignment for (concurrent for all 8 of his terms in congress???) or what he did while holding each assignment. This section looks rather incomplete -- apparently a common problem for biographies of members of the US congress.--PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the way they do them, and I agree that I don't like it either. I'll get to that in a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Muboshgu. I prefer more prose, but this is on par with other US congressmen's wikibio in recent memories. --PFHLai (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Naoero parliamentary election

 * Support once expanded - I'd doubt the significance but I realize this is in WP:ITN/R, so this is not the place to raise my objections. Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs more prose, needs to have the links removed from the section headers per MOS:SECTIONHEAD, tables need "scopes" per MOS:DTAB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the article is 80% tables at the moment. The Kip (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Sadly, even the tables are not complete - only four of the eight constituencies are currently included. See also here: Nauru election results. In addition, it seems that a new president was elected by the new parliament - it would be great to have more prose on that too. Khuft (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I propose we make an exception and skip this one per WP:IAR. Tradedia talk 12:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * no. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we wouldn't post results for a mayoral election for a small city of 10,000 people. As cool as Nauru is, they are tiny. 1779Days (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * and? You should know that Nauru is a sovereign nation. City ≠ Nation _-_Alsor (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Microstates, many of which are Pacific islands, are problematic. They are sovereign states, but their influence on the world stage is very limited because they're effectively the size of cities. I guarantee if Nauru, or Tonga, or Micronesia, or many other Pacific island states were on a mainland somewhere with the same population and land area they would not be sovereign nations. Whereas even a small country like Estonia for example has a much larger influence. I'd support changing the criteria to require a population of at least one million before its government change is ITNR. 1779Days (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very aware this is ITNR, but I Oppose- not because it is a small country, but because this isn't sufficiently covered in reliable sources. No problem posting if this is sufficiently in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - something I shouldn't have to say because the entire purpose of ITNR is to skip the notability question because change in government in a sovereign state is inherently notable. Oppose for now on quality. The most substantial section is the one which describes the electoral system, but there is little content about the election itself. <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> 💙 18:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The election is already over but there seems to be still no improvements to the article. Shwcz (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The new president has just been sworn in, so there is an altblurb. Joofjoof (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The quality of both the election article itself, and of the Russ Kun article, are currently sadly too low to merit posting. I hope someone might jump in and expand these articles! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle once it is fully updated. While I understand and support IARing certain ITNR topics, national election results should not be one of those. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now, thanks for your great work. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's time to face it, those results from Yaren and Ubenide just aren't coming back. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once expanded: Even if this isn't a very significant country, national election results should be included. I wouldn't have known about this if I hadn't happened to check WikipediaFR yesterday. I use Wikipedia daily to make sure I'm up to date on every world leader, as I have them all committed to memory. Moncoposig (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb if the article’s expanded Excluding the elections of certain countries seems like it’d lead to a slippery slope. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Article expanded textwise, and result tables are complete. Joofjoof (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Curbon7 for checking again. Pinging PFHLai and Stephen. Joofjoof (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 06:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Reed (American football)

 * Support Article looks fine. Teemu08 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is good and looks fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Cuban Family Code referendum

 * Inquiry Is this the first (non-overseas-territory) same-sex marriage legalization in the Caribbean? If so, this is notable. Also worth mentioning in the blurb that the same referendum legalized adoption by same-sex couples. <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> 💙 23:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sort of. It is the first *independent* Caribbean island to legalize same-sex marriage. The other places in the Caribbean that have same-sex marriage have some association with Europe or the US. For example, Overseas France, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands; Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (Netherlands) See Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also the first Marxist-Leninist or communist state to legalize it. I would say both factors push it to notability. .  KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Added an alt-blurb that also links to LGBT rights in Cuba, since pages of this type are typically ran whenever a country adopts same-sex marriage (and the article itself is in good shape from a cursory glance). Anyway, weak support as it's the first Caribbean nation and first authoritarian country to adopt same-sex marriage. However, the Family Code page needs to make its summary beefier and fix some citation needed tags. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are more than thirty countries that have legalised same sex marriage. Not notable. Stephen 23:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the first Marxist-Leninist and communist state to recognize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. KlayCax (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The early Soviet Union deregulated such matters – see free love, for example. That was really progressive whereas the Cuban thing seems to be a huge bureaucratic list of regulations about numerous family matters. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't the Soviet Union do so on accident via a technicality? Lenin (who opposed free love) declared all imperial-era laws null and void, which technically deregulated homosexuality for a short time, and then Stalin cracked down on it and the USSR would remain very hostile to gay civil liberties for the rest of its existence. It was certainly not an example of a Marxist-Leninist state intentionally granting rights to gay couples. <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> 💙 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of these are in Europe or South America where it same-sex marriage is more common and less notable (hence why we blurbed Taiwan but not Slovenia). <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> 💙 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Mount Patagonia stating that it was the first Caribbean nation to legalize it. Barring islands owned by Western powers, the Caribbean has some very poor LGBT rights. This is a remarkable first for the region. <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> 💙 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In other news the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow. From my perspective, this has become routine. If Saudi Arabia or Russia legalize it, I might consider supporting a blurb. But otherwise, this has become an endless run of "this or that country legalizes SSM" nominations. If someone wants to propose that legalization of SSM should be added to ITNR, that discussion belongs on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cuba is the first communist and Marxist-Leninist state to legalize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. It's not like Italy hypothetically legalizing it. KlayCax (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * AGF Support per the analysis of TenorTwelve and Mount Patagonia. If every election result is posted even when there isn't a transfer of power... this is a significant change. --Gaois (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the "Voting" section is properly cited. It might need a bit more expansion too. The article overall does look very nice and should fit well within our ITN framework. First independent Caribbean nation to make the step is real excellent news! LGBT rights has always been an interesting ongoing story within Cuba and has been quite positive since the 1990s, but this is a great landmark. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The more I read about this topic, the more significant it seems. Aljazeera notes that it "[allows] surrogate pregnancies, broader rights for grandparents in regard to grandchildren, protection of the elderly and measures against gender violence." I do feel like the article might need more expansion on the details on all these items before posting... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough for ITN. We don't want to use Wikipedia for political activism. Tradedia talk 09:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How does this fall under political activism? — VersaceSpace  🌃 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not. Wikipedia did the same with Taiwan in 2019. It's entirely in line with previous, established precedent on the issue. I'm perplexed by your claim that this is . News coverage isn't the same as an endorsement (for or against). KlayCax (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Major news, first country in the Caribbean to do so. Stop being homophobic and celebrate this victory for the LGBTQ+ community. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 12:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hcoder3104: That is an extremely bad-faith casting of aspersions. No one here is motivated by homophobia. Please strike your comment. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I support its inclusion, that's a massive reach of an accusation to make considering the genuine debate above. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Stephen, Orientem, Tradedia. Old hat . – Sca (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * : It's entirely in line with the criteria established by precedent. Cuba is the first communist, Marxist-Leninist, and Caribbean state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. There's simply a multitude of reasons on why this is independently notable.KlayCax (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support With Cuba being both the first major Caribbean state and first professed Marxist-Leninist state to do most of this, I feel the notability meets the bar for ITNR (versus being the Xth European country to do so). The Kip (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Major news. Reporting on an advancement of human rights isn't "political activism". What a joke. — VersaceSpace  🌃 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless I'm mistaken, there never was a law against gay marriage, only a part of the constitution that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That prohibitive wording was already removed in December 2018, approved by referendum February 2019. Now, in 2022, it's defined as a union of "two people", but is no more or less legal than it had been for about four years. I'm totally ignorant on the adoption angle; maybe that's a real change. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a bit inaccurate. No, Cuba did not already have same-sex marriage before 2022. Despite the removal of the explicit Constitutional ban in 2019, article 2 of the previous Family Code law defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The changes to the constitution three years ago simply paved the way for this to be possible today. Note that most countries don't have such explicit constitutional bans on SSM like Cuba used to, yet most countries also don't legally recognize SSM. E.g., Poland has a constitutional ban on it, but dropping that constitutional ban would not be the same as legalizing 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> 💙 17:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it had them, I said its constitution already dropped the only wording that (implicitly) banned them. If there's some practical distinction between legalizing something and making it not illegal, it's too slight for me. And if you're saying the Family Code still defined marriage as between one man and one woman after April 2019, that's at odds with several paragraphs in the target article's Background section. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Constitution of Cuba banned same-sex marriage until 2019. However, other pieces of legislation restricted legal marriage recognition to heterosexual partnerships. No same-sex relationships were recognized in law until the passage of the referendum. KlayCax (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So same-sex marriages are now recognized in Cuba. Cool. Added an altblurb, InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A legally binding marriage is one that is recognized by the state. If it is not recognized, it is not legal. <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> 💙 21:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, previous gay marriages were not legally binding. But before they were recognized, it was not a crime to perform or partake in one. On the other hand, the doing, providing and holding of many "progressive" recreational drugs has yet to be legalized, despite several Cuban laws presumably recognizing the practices. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Performing a gay marriage" when it's not legally binding is just pretending to get married for fun. Of course that wouldn't be a crime. Describing that as "gay marriage was legal, just not recognized" is just severely misunderstanding what the word "legal" means in the context of gay marriage. Altblurb2 is misinformed. <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> 💙 21:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It could also be seen as binding in the eyes of God before the state recognizes it. A sacred bond, not just gay fun. If you don't consider legal recognition of same-sex marriages and other matters the point here, by all means, ignore my blurb (but always remember, performers marry, partakers get married.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The first nation in a historically socially-conservative region makes this more noteworthy than if it was X European country, and I think it is worthwhile to note this in blurb that it is the first in the Caribbean. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only the first in the Caribbean if you arbitrarily discount the third lead paragraph of Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the first sovereign state in the Caribbean to do so, every other one has been a territory/dominion of another country The Kip (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a meaningful distinction, in a sexual context, or just trivia? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a meaningful distinction. The United States is not "a Caribbean country", despite owning territories in it where same-sex marriage is only legal simply because these lands are owned by the US. The Caribbean is a very conservative region with regards to LGBT rights. Never before has a country within it made the decision to legalize SSM. <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> 💙 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a very conservative region if you pretend the lands and people that make up its majority don't count because they're somewhat remotely administered (or not Communist, Marxist, Leninist, whatever). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Maplestrip and The Kip as the first country in the region and the first country with a similar ideology legalizing gay marriage. Also, it's only the third constitutional referendum in Cuba ever and the first after the 2019 Cuban constitutional referendum that adopted the current constitution, which is also noteworthy since Cuba has not seen the possibility of such participation (with the last one being 43 years before the 2019 one). Regards So  Why  19:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per previously established precedent. Cuba is the first communist, Marxist-Leninist, and independent Caribbean polity to legally recognize same-sex marriages. KlayCax (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Stephen, Orientem, Tradedia, etc. Nothing new. Just routine. Same-sex marriages are legal in several countries around the world.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kacamata. I don't think we need to blurb every time this happens. If this happened in Saudi Arabia I'd say blurb it. Thriley (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not voting on this because of how charged the conversation has become, but I think it does not make sense for us to use region as context for posting such a blurb. Yes, Cuba may be the first Caribbean country that has legalized same-sex marriage, but that fact alone does not make this blurb-worthy in the sense that the Caribbean isn't some homogeneous group of nations, and we have no proof that the legalization of same-sex marriage in one Caribbean country will have any effect on similar legislation in another. I think if this nom were to pass it should be in the Marxist-Leninist context, not the regional one. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I expect prose explaining the impact of its passing, justifying its posting to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. First in the region, sweeping effects for the country, huge milestone for LGBT rights. Davey2116 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - elections are typically posted for every country in the world. The result is historic since it is the first Communist country to legalize gay marriage. Shwcz (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – After 38+ hours, consensus appears unlikely to develop. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the !votes aren't that close (by my count 14:9 including the nom), but Wikipedia is not a vote and the longer this goes without posting the more stale it'll be. Not stale just yet IMO, I still see people talk about it outside of Wikipedia, but I agree it is slowly but surely getting stale. <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> 💙 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support a major development no matter how many have come before it, and rare enough that we can post without worry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose results and the conduct section lacks references. Also, please remember that Cuba is still part of North America. Joofjoof (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose such legalizations are common nowadays. It seems to be legalized throughout most of the Americas. Unless some country currently punishing it with death penalty legalizes it, it shouldn't get posted. 2A02:2F0E:D619:3D00:417C:3EAC:70D0:F5CD (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In terms of news, stale. – Sca (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Three and a half days and 2,300 words later, no consensus to post. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I count 13 supports - 10 opposes, with good rationales across the table. That's a rough consensus to post — VersaceSpace  🌃 19:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Double Asteroid Redirection Test

 * Wait until it is confirmed whether it impacts or fails to impact the asteroid; will change to support afterwards. The Kip (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Successful impact. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's good to give people advance warning. I'm watching the Official NASA broadcast.  The opposition of Jupiter is also worth a look but it's overcast where I am.  Note that the launch was previously posted.  This time, we have a cool picture of the target just before impact and there may be some good stand-off images of the impact to come. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, once properly updated. NYT reports that the test was successful. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the mission was successful, the spaccraft deliberately crashed into the asteroid. It would be good to have confirmation of the asteroid orbital trajectory change but I guess that will be sometime before that can be confirmed. Polyamorph (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial support Change to support - After it's been replaced by the official release (rather than the crop from a blurry Youtube video). The image is a composite of the images released. I'd still prefer the official release I linked to, but I guess this is fine. Renerpho (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Dimorphos is actually a Minor-planet moon, rather than an asteroid/minor planet on its own right, so I would consider providing an altblurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Didymos and Dimorphos are a binary asteroid system. Dimorphos is the "moon" in the system but is still an asteroid in its own right. Polyamorph (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – The article is looking lovely and this seems very well-suited. I do see one or two sentences uncited, which should be fixed first, but the article seems mostly ready to me! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment ATLAS has published a nice GIF of their telescopic view of the impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Definitely notable enough and the article has been updated. However it could do with some tidying up - it's been used as an image dump, some of the prose is self-promotional, and there are a few cn tags for the new material. I've added an altblurb, which is both shorter and avoids the confusion of saying the impact is to avoid an impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once above issues are resolved. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - unique event in space history. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What's up with the broken template displayed above? Renerpho (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Love to see space news on ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 3 "citation needed" and a "needs update" tag outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support its been two days, the article is fine jonas (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Nothing has really happened yet. Shwcz (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support only once the "Course of the impact" section is updated. Several cn and update tags are oustanding, and this is the section that we are promoting. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I finished cleaning up the final tags in the article. I think confirmation of shift could work also, but it's unlikely to receive the same coverage as to flashy plume and livestream. I suggest posting asap. 2A02:2F0E:D619:3D00:417C:3EAC:70D0:F5CD (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article looks good, posted a mixed blurb, may be a bit long. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think ".. demonstration of asteroid deflection" would be better than ".. demonstration of asteroid impact avoidance," as we are not actually demonstrating an "impact avoidance" with this test; the asteroids wouldn't impact a planet either way. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I used 'impacts' instead of 'collides with' since that was the terminology most frequently used in primary sources. Agreed about the repetition bit though. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yusuf al-Qaradawi

 * Support: He is one of the most influential figure among Muslim world. 3skandar (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Many CN tags, orange "expansion" section, some wonky English, generally seems like a long argument about controversial things. The update is in order (no cause needed). Definitely famous enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once quality issues are fixed. The Kip (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, quality issues are the only issues that exist when it comes to RD. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Per above. Ainty Painty (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there remain many unreferenced statements and an orange tag on the biography section. Unmarked as ready. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the uncited quotes as both uncited and mostly OR on primary sources, leaving the expand tag. Id say just remove that too, anybody can expand it without the tag. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There still remain a number of cn tags, as well as a few major works lacking ISBN identifiers. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are still a handful of {cn} tags, and an asking for an expansion with materials on the subject's life after 2011. --PFHLai (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Izhevsk school shooting

 * Support after expansion. We posted the Kazan school shooting last year (see here). Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article needs further expansion but I definitely see myself supporting this! :( ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded per nom and Anarchyte. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... pending expansion. Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is expanded and everything is confirmed Mooonswimmer 12:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article has bare minimum to post Sherenk1 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only getting 174 words of prose, we tend to want around 500 for posting purposes. --M asem (t) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting once expanded We don't even need to compare to the US. If this happened in the US, we would post it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  12:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So much for not needing to compare. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Are TASS, Dmitry Peskov and the Investigative Committee of Russia to be believed on such things as casualty figures and allegations of Nazi-themed terrorism? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If our normal RSes are reporting what these groups say. We have zero reason to doubt that these statements were made, but I would expect their statements to be attributed. M asem (t) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They're currently attributed in some places, Wikipedia-voiced in Events and only vaguely alluded to (perhaps with suspicion) in others, such as "officials" and "reported". It's not terrible. But it bears watching. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 14:00, this event led most RS sites (although NYT put it below a dozen other articles). All the RSs above quote official Russian sources. The lone shooter reportedly wore "Nazi symbols" or a swastika. That may echo Russian propaganda about Ukraine, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Definitely looming large, no reason for us to ignore it. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Stubish now, needs expanding. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think we have too many of these items. But I don't see how it doesn't get posted, given what gets (in my mind, unnecessarily) posted about such events in USA and recently in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, We have put similar incidents before. Alex-h (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – At this point article is a 235-word stub. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently oppose on quality. Essentially two and a half sentences about the events themselves is too little for me at this time, given that's the topic of the article and what would be the subject of the blurb. As illustration, the "See also" section is about a third the length in words of "Events". A quick check of the sources, and other news reports, it seems there is little in the of information right now, though I assume there will be more forthcoming. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, not ready on quality per what everyone else said. Once it's lengthened to at least start-class and we have more information about the event itself, it should be good to go. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded per Vanilla Wizard. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In news terms, getting stale. – Sca (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks more than a stub now as there was some expansion, marking ready. Brandmeistertalk  09:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In terms of news, stale. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, still newer than our newest item (26 September vs. Kipchoge's item from 25 September). Brandmeistertalk  18:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of news, not in terms of Wiki ITN blurb order. -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unmarked ready Consensus is that this is notable for posting upon expansion. The current readable prose is  2046 bytes and 322 words.  Need affirmation on whether this is sufficient.  There was one earlier mention of wanting 500 words.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Alas, a missed opportunity. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now at 412 words and looks okay IMO. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article is a little short but is well-cited and meets minimum quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Meredith Tax

 * The for POV and inadequate sourcing must be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , give it another look. I can't find a great source for not finishing her dissertation. Her obit merely says She was a graduate of Brandeis University and a fellowship student in London who had dreams of a gilded career in the arts, “a glass cage,” before the 1960s politicized her, then radicalized her into “studying the world instead of literature.” – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revising this. Glad to see those tags gone. I have taken out that bit about not finishing her dissertation. With 500+ words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. Formatting looks okay. Footnotes can be found where are expected. Earwig didn't find much troubles. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – three unsourced sentences remaining (even after dissertation sentence was removed). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They're addressed now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this useful? --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For the coauthors, sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nikolai Kirtok

 * Long enough with 650+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots (AGF on all non-English REFs). Earwig has no complaints at all. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jonathan Beaulieu-Richard

 * Support Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is of rather low quality, only containing two references with actual prose about the player. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair call-out. A big issue is that he was a Quebecois. Anybody parlez-vous Francais? I see French-language sources are out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's better now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support C'est bon. Joofjoof (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Soutien. L'article est de qualité suffisante pour ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Postée. --PFHLai (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Florio

 * Support, As the article is updated.Alex-h (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there still something wrong with this article? Looks ready to go to me. Thriley (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was just posted at 2:27; you beat me to noting it here. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Italian general election

 * Support Obviously notable and article looks fine. According to the centre-right coalition, the coalition is led by the three main party leaders (Meloni, Salvini, and Berlusconi). As such saying that Meloni is the leader of the coalition would appear inaccurate, even if it is likely she will be elected Prime Minister after the election. I would instead rephrase the blurb as: "The Centre-right coalition wins the 2022 Italian general election. (Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni pictured)." Gust Justice (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article does not "look fine" when the "Results" section only contains empty tables and no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I would only post once at least initial results are part of the article. I wouldn't immediately post the blurb right now. Gust Justice (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this is ITN/R, there is no need to support on importance, only when the item is ready based on quality. Your initial comment made no mention of waiting for it to be ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per agreement in the centre-right coalition, largest party gets the PM role, and that is Meloni, so she has obviously been crowned the winner by RS but we can use the other blurb too. BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now until results tables are filled in and some prose about the results is written up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Have added an aftermath and exit polls result section now. BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support, By ANY Blurb The results section is empty. Assuming that's normal for now and the article won't otherwise get worse, cool. Only two years or less till this major country's 69th post-war government! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Official results are not out yet. I do not think we should post this nom on exit polls. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Main opposition, Democratic Party has conceded, Meloni has announced victory and several politicians such as Le Pen and Polish PM have congratulated her. We can of course wait, but it is not likely to change anything.  BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, and then support Alternative. Wait for the table to have a reliable set of results, of course, but this is fairly conclusive. JackWilfred (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We need to wait for the dust to settle but note that Melini would be Italy's first female PM. She seems to be in the mould of Britain's first female PM – big on traditional values and handbagging the EU.  But coalition politics are messy.  Note that we are still blurbing the Swedish election, which was two weeks ago, but they don't seem to have formed a government yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As a Swede that have lived in Italy, there is a clear difference here. The centre-right coalition is an actual coalition with all agreements made, and Meloni already being finalized as the PM candidate as her party is the biggest. Sweden’s right-bloc was an ”informal” coalition with no agreements made except ousting the sitting government, and that is why the negotiations is taking a while. BastianMAT (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, until actual election results rather than just exit polls are available. Nsk92 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , 98% of the actual results counted now, lol.  BastianMAT (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The results table in the article is still empty. Nsk92 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's the source for the results, someone needs to fill the table with them. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment –  BBC hed says Meloni "wins election."  – Sca (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – I think the article is ready for ITN. Yakme (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article, with detailed prose on the results and aftermath, well-cited throughout. Exemplary. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... for now. Article backs into results, mentioning Meloni's victory only after 186 words of background. Reorganization needed. With a suitably revised lead section it would be blurbable. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: FWIW, German Wiki's ITN blurbs this as follows: "In the parliamentary elections in Italy, the far-right Fratelli d'Italia under its leader Giorgia Meloni emerge[s] as the strongest force." – Sca (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think now the lead is a bit more on point. Yakme (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it's in the second graf. Somewhat better, but ideally it should be in the first, the true 'lede' paragraph. -- Sca (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as the first paragraph should first state why there was a snap election in the first place, then the results. I think at the moment the results are quite clear by reading the first few lines. Yakme (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I followed your latest suggestion, which one is better?12 Davide King (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Found a middle-ground agreement with which IMO improved the intro. Should now make everyone happy. Yakme (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Quality is good enough; don't see a good reason to delay this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the blurb is corrected to "right-wing". Only one of the three parties forming the coalition is regularly described as "centre-right" (Forza Italia) and it received the smallest percentage in the polls. Many reliable sources even describe the government as "far-right": (even right-of-centre sources: ). <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 15:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. (Er, in German it's der Wolf, though.) -- Sca (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say on the quality of the article? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that the results have been moved up to the top, the article seems adequate. Suggest post while it's still timely. -- Sca (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The WP:COMMON name of the winning coalition is Centre-right coalition, it's a historical name in Italian politics. It does not matter that it is right-wing, or far-right, that's its name. Yakme (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Semantics, IMO. Let's follow the RS usage. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Small c, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What about: "The coalition led by Giorgia Meloni (pictured) wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Italian general election"? Yakme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like a link to coalition. We may as well say the prime minister won the election. I insist you were right the first time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb Article is ready. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good article quality. Results are clear now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - What's the holdup? – Sca (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's more of a question and I believe the proper term is ritardo. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support page is ready now Shadow4dark (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted (Inserito? Pubblicato?). --PFHLai (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aïcha Chenna

 * Support Appears to be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oleksii Zhuravko

 * Comment – Article says subject was "reportedly killed" in an airstrike. That language doesn't seem definite enough for an 'encyclopedic' RD. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. RD requires "reliably sourced confirmation of their death", and I'm not convinced that second-hand reports of a statement in "Russian propaganda media" qualify. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the news or references are in English. All can be seen as Russian or Ukrainian propaganda. If it were just most and the subject was less controversial, I'd say whatever, not technically verboten. But no. Not whatever now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The "language" changed to Factish and the BBC is now referenced, confirming in no uncertain terms that A representative of the law enforcement agencies in the region was quoted by the TASS news agency as saying that the attack "was clearly carried out with the help of Nato representatives, according to their intelligence and on their tip". In simpler terms, Kirill Stremousov said in a statement that Ukrainian armed forces fired a missile on the Play Hotel by Ribas at 05:30 (03:30 BST) on Sunday. In one, "terrorist". The article might still need work, attribution-wise, but whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks better. -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the article has been reasonably fixed-up from its state at nomination to assuage the concerns above. Curbon7 (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Berlin Marathon

 * Support once updated Still in need of updates, and fixing of barerefs, but it is clearly significant enough to post, since we posted the prior marathon world record, also set by Kipchoge at the Berlin Marathon. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is improved. I find it really surprising that this marathon isn't listed as ITNR given that it's been part of the World Marathon Majors from the beginning and its flat course makes it attractive with significantly higher probability to set a new world record.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once updated - The marathon is significant on its own, nevermind with the new record . Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that new records are a usual thing here, but I remain supportive of the nomination. Perhaps even an addition to WP:ITN/R? Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the Berlin Marathon was posted in 2018, not sure what would be different to make it lacking in significance now vs then. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2018 nomination and posting was based on the significance of the new world record rather than the significance of the event. The significance of the two records may or may not be the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the record that was had broken a record that was set the previous year by 27 seconds, so presumably, this one is more significant.  also, my guess is that this record will last for a while (though i would love to be proven wrong).$[original research]$  one opinion, in an article published on a site filled with experienced runners, predicts kipchoge's record "could stand for 20 years".  (i wouldn't go that far, though.)  dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article on Tigist Assefa needs to be updated/expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing this out (and for cropping a picture of her). Track1News has expanded her article with an update.  dying (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 30 seconds off the world record seems significant and it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment: i have marked the nomination updated as there is now a summary of kipchoge's race, although i hope to eventually get a summary of the others up as well. in addition, as i now realize that, the last time the world record was broken, only the record breaker was mentioned in, i have added an altblurb.  (assefa's result was actually the third-fastest time ever, broke the course record by more than 2.5 minutes, and broke her personal record by almost 20 minutes, despite the race being only her second marathon, but, alas, it was not a world record.)  i have also added a photo taken of kipchoge during the run, though i think some elements of the image could be cropped out.  dying (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * note that there is now an interesting discussion on the talk page about marathons on itn/r. also, i've provided another photo of kipchoge during the race, as this one may be less busy, and therefore perhaps more appropriate on the main page as a small thumbnail.  many thanks to  who helped crop the original image, which i am now using as the infobox image.  dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This should probably be posted in terms of the ludicrous breaking of the world record, rather than the event itself. In which case the target article should probably be Eliud Kipchoge. His article appears to be mostly fine apart from the second paragraph of the "2021" section, which is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this is a good point. i was unsure of which to bold (or whether to bold both) since the article on kipchoge himself was already pretty good, so i decided to follow the pattern used by recent marathon blurbs, which bolded the race, not the runners.  i now see that the 2018 berlin blurb has the runner in bold, but not the marathon.  i would support any decision, though if it gets posted without the marathon article in bold, i would also request that the associated article creation credit be removed from my nomination.  dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've drafted another altblurb that I think is clearer if we want to post a blurb mentioning both winners. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * World Record Only A lesser concurrent announcement waters it down (and as the record, the runner and the race completely coincide in this recent event, none can rightly stand bolder). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Too many sports news. Tradedia talk 05:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perplexed I remember that among last year's Nobel Prizes in science, one was omitted here but of course, any sports news gets posted. This is getting ridiculous. I had never heard of Australian Rules football before and would have been glad to never hear of it. So why not for these world changing 30 seconds... Varoon2542 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * i am similarly perplexed. i believe all of the  marathon world records have been posted since the start of itn/c: 2007 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;), 2008 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;), 2011 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;), 2013 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;), 2014 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;), and 2018 (disc&thinsp;&middot;&thinsp;).  (also, they were all set in berlin.)  i had admittedly assumed that posting marathon world records was a no-brainer.  dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Dying Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean that it should continue. Are all practices not to be questioned? I was appalled when a Nobel Prize in Science was omitted last year. I had admittedly assumed that posting Nobel Prize winners was a no-brainer. I also assumed that marathon world records that happen very frequently (seven in less than 15 years!) as you yourself demonstrated, was not a significant subject to justify appearing on the main page. It's not a world changing event and it might pain you to learn, but most people who use wikipedia don't give a damn Varoon2542 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , i'm sorry, i should have made myself more clear. entries on itn/c are evaluated based on quality and significance.  amazing articles may not get posted due to lack of significance, and important articles may not get posted due to lack of quality.  when i mentioned that i had assumed that posting marathon world records was a no-brainer, i had only meant that i had assumed that they were clearly significant.  the bolded article still had to be of sufficient quality before the blurb was ready for posting, and, as nominator, i had the implicit responsibility of making sure that was the case.if you look through all the discussions i linked, it appears that no one has previously opposed a nomination of a marathon world record due to significance.  there has been one !vote (in 2011) stating that the article was not ready, and one !vote (in 2018) preferring to wait until the result was ratified.  (there was also one !vote to remove (in 2013) from an editor apparently unfamiliar with how itn/c worked.)  Sca is the first editor in the past fifteen years to oppose due to significance, hence my surprise.  of course, practices can be questioned, but there had been no signs that this one would be, with many previous !votes stating that these record marathon runs had obvious significance.the awarding of nobel prizes is also clearly significant.  in fact, it is on itn/r, a list of events presumed significant enough to automatically warrant posting if the associated article passes a quality check.  as a result, posting nobel prizes is a no-brainer, as long as the associated articles have no quality issues.  this is why, when i  the nobel laureates for physiology or medicine last year, i made sure that the articles were of sufficient quality to post.i am assuming that you are upset about the nobel laureates for physics not being posted last year.  i remember, because when i was reviewing it, it was clear that one of the articles appeared to have been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, who had made the article not fit for posting.  i did not have the time to rewrite it, and sadly, it seems no one else did either.  notice that no one opposed that nomination due to significance, so if you had the time and ability to improve the article of questionable quality so that it was clearly of posting standard before the nomination had become stale, it could easily have been posted.interestingly enough, i am actually not pained to learn that most people on wikipedia don't care about marathon world records; after all, most people in my life don't care about them either, or really about much that we post on itn.  on the contrary, i was actually really happy to discover that a lot of people on itn/c do care about the records, and also care very much about the nobel prizes.anyhow, if you have the time, i do hope you'll stay with us for a while and help us get deserving articles up to posting quality.  dying (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT only World record is notable, course record is not. The Kip (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 - widely covered new world record, but would support the bolded article being Eliud Kipchoge per Black Kite. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 as per above. We should be in the business of posting major athletic achievements. I tend to think those are more important than individual sports competitions.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 The more significant of the two, as this marathon isn't under ITNR, but the record in itself is a noteworthy achievement. Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Consensus to post with focus on the world record. Blurb patterned after 2018 record post.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Blaikie

 * Support article has all necessary citations and no orange tags. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Fiona results

 * Oppose Not a significant disaster, but the record about lowest pressure system is fair game at DYK. --M asem (t) 21:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure what the impact of this is. Perhaps elaborate a bit further on damage/death toll, if there is one?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is international news – see the BBC, for example: Hurricane Fiona: Canada hit by 'historic, extreme event'. Or Le Monde. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maine is cooperating with provincial authorities. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still unconfirmed. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I nominated this on September 18. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, you did. Close this redundant nom. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the earlier nom was about Fiona causing some damages in the Caribbean and is on track to get archived in about 20 hours. This new nom is about Fiona causing much more damages in Canada and setting hurricane records. Seems to be two distinct news stories in two separate noms. --PFHLai (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Better wait and see how much damage this hurricane causes in Canada. --PFHLai (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A mere factoid. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. It's hurricane season, so hurricanes are expected. Better suited for DYK &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Maybe this is better suited for DYK as others have suggested. Fiona was in some ways a remarkable storm, but it also (thankfully!) caused surprisingly few fatal casualties for a major hurricane which affected so many different places throughout its lifespan. <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> 💙 17:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. The death toll has been steadily rising and it's already about as high as when we'd usually blurb a hurricane. <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> 💙 00:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Interesting event but more DYK material. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per Vanilla Wizard. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A Canadian record???!!!!! C'mon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Tenebris England's right, Canadian history's boring, a hurricane that fails MINIMUMDEATHS should beat some Atlantic record before it's showcased. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What number, User:InedibleHulk is MINIMUMDEATHS - I can't find that article? We certainly have posted articles about murderers who have less victims - even though that's a frequent occurrence in some countries. Nfitz (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an unfixed number. I could say twelve and be too high and too low, depends on others. Anyway, hurricanes aren't murders, and by virtue of almost always taking way longer should make Ongoing far more often (today's big storm shares its name with a Moors Murderer, DYK?). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if hurricanes in ongoing would work in a lot of cases, as forecasts any further out than 3 days into the future can change quite a bit and it'd only make sense in situations where we knew that a hurricane would cause substantial damage to another country not long after causing damage to a first country (no use in making it ongoing if it just drifts off into the ocean and dissipates, right?) But I agree that Fiona would've been more noteworthy if it shattered Atlantic Hurricane records, not just Atlantic Canada records. <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> 💙 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Death toll sits at 19 now - with some still missing. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant the Atlantic Ocean (thought Atlantic Records). Hurricanes have precisely defined beginnings and ends, little subjectivity required when we see them in the news, and no need to boil the wider path down into a blurb someone will always find lacking (or misfocused or worse). Nineteen is a considerable amount. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering my opposition; we posted Hurricane Ida last year when it had fewer confirmed deaths (14 at the time). the toll would soon rise to 40 before its final count was over 100. <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> 💙 20:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to poison the well, but on my WIP-essay WP:HOWITNWORKS, which was transplanted from 's essay, it was determined that at least 17 deaths would be "enough" for a hurricane to be ITN-significant from a death toll standpoint. Of course, all sorts of factors come into play there. And even so, I want to emphasize there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Has there ever previously been an Atlantic category 4 hurricane so far north of Bermuda? (Not saying it was category 4 at landfall.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the northernmost category 4 Atlantic hurricanes on record (1851-2022) and also the northernmost on record with such low minimum pressure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So there is an Atlantic record as well as the Canadian one, and a significant one. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks good and with over 20 deaths it's clearly at posting levels. The one Canadian death is an interesting aspect to it, but I suppose completely irrelevant ^_^; ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two Canadian deaths. Personally, I don't blame storms for generator accidents. But Wikipedia has long tended to think them relevant enough, along with falls from ladders while boarding up in advance, car crashes on slippery roads and heart attacks while shoveling snow. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are the indirect deaths when they are sometimes broken down into direct and indirect. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the two confirmed Canadian deaths, one was washed out to sea when the storm surge hit. There's at least one more still missing. Nfitz (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Total deaths are 27 now - 3 in Canada, with the assumption that the missing person was also washed out to sea. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn the sea! He or she will be missed. Any word yet on how many of that globally growing total are indirect deaths? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb Significant enough death toll to be posted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article has now been updated and orange tags removed; death toll is significant enough. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could an admin please post/close this before it gets procedurally archived? 98.116.128.17 (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Pharoah Sanders

 * Support — Unfortunate to hear about his loss and condolences to his family. Article is in good standing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are several unsourced paragraphs, it needs a lot of work. M asem (t) 04:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is a large amount of unreferenced text and a potential copyvio issue. This all needs fixing before going on the main page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 AFL Grand Final

 * Weak Support - Article seems fine but the topic would be unfamiliar to many people. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused. 😕 Since it states in the nomination that "The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" what is the relevance of it being unfamiliar to many people? Or is the sentence in the nomination incorrect? --Gaois (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. But its lack of popularity which makes me not fully support ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 19:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the news/Recurring items <- It is in the recurring items Haris920 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION which states "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising and showcasing". The nominated article has a large Toyota brand logo at the top.  The article does not otherwise mention this car company and so this seems to be gratuitous advertising. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article has a medium sized Toyota logo at the top, which is part of the 2022 AFL Grand Final logo. I don't see how this is any worse than the countless American stadiums that have a brand name as their article name. If you really want, a sentence on the Toyota sponsorship could be added to the article, even though that would make the article more promotional than it currently is. I don't think that should preclude this being posted to ITN. Steelkamp (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot do anything about official logos for events that include logos of other companies. That should be completely obvious of what we can't change from a non-free image. M asem (t) 17:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can do something about it. We can refuse to give such intrusive advertising a free plug on our main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No we can't. Period. Is it advertising? Yes. Is it blatant advertising? No, it is a de minimus element of the logo. If we had a standalone logo of Toyota at the same size, with all other problems with that given (no mention in the body, etc.), that would be a problem. M asem (t) 17:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is intrusive about it? It's part of the darn logo! DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is designed to stand out and catch the eye. It was the first thing I noticed when I clicked through to the article.  It distracts from the actual sport and makes me think of Toyota cars instead.  This is the entire point of such logo placement – see brand awareness.  The fact that such spam is all over some sports now doesn't mean that we have to facilitate and highlight it.  We could, for example, just remove the logo.  Or not post the item.  So far as ITN is concerned, my position is unchanged.  This article violates a major policy and should not be featured here. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Go get it deleted. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that's the literal official name of the season per the official website: the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership season. It's actually in the official logo for the event itself because Toyota has naming rights. There seems to be no real way for the article to include the actual logo for the event without the massive Toyota brand. The article isn't being more gratuitous advertising than any other sports events article, though it may serve well enough to what, say, the 2018 NHL Winter Classic did? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a massive dose of WP:RGW. What portion of professional sports isn't sponsored nowadays? Sorry, but this isn't sufficient enough of an argument to merit overturning the WP:ITNR process. There are worthy exceptions, but this is absolutely not one of them. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this any better? The photograph of the stadium is more prominent. --Gaois (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Said "large Toyota logo" is only one part of the competition logo. I've gone ahead and restored it, as plenty of other sporting competitions have similar logos used in their infoboxes without issue.  Sounder Bruce  01:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Meh I almost objected to the blatant mistitling, despite Toyota owning the naming right fair and square, but it's apparently been cheated like that here since 2007 and it hasn't stopped the routine series of postings yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is titled the way it is due to COMMONNAME. Steelkamp (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So are a lot of things. The lead usually spells out the real (official) name at least once in most. But again, meh! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Other than the nominator-acknowledged needed updates for the match itself and about the medal, the article also has four unreferenced paragraphs in "Background" and almost everything under "Ceremonies and entertainment" and "Media coverage" is also unreferenced. In my opinion, these are the actual, salient points that will prevent a feature. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is 100% clear without the Toyota ad, so I have removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Alternative blurb II. There is a photograph. I have tried to fix the unreferenced sections. I also adjusted the appearance of the multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in a part of Aichi Prefecture which I won't name so that readers won't notice it first. --Gaois (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There are now references galore. As an ITN/R item, significance is already established. The pearl-clutching about the sponsor's logo was over-the-top, but the offending image has now been removed. Chrisclear (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds per Andrew Davidson. It has also recently been established that significance or INTR items can be challenged. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused again. 😕 When and where has that been established? Gaois (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the news/Candidates/September 2022 BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's comparing apples and oranges. See the comments below. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On the quality, would this make it better? The logo was later restored, though it seems unfortunate that a dispute over a logo being inside or outside an infobox would prevent it being posted (if that is the case). --Gaois (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, or the use of this logo. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On the significance, it is the sport's top game. The events surrounding the game have been getting English-language media coverage in both hemispheres. Some examples of Northern Hemisphere media coverage in recent days and weeks include: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. --Gaois (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those all seem to be Irish media so calling them the "Northern Hemisphere" is a stretch. I did a search in the BBC's sports and news websites and found nothing.  The BBC provides pretty wide coverage of the world, such as the Canadian hurricane above, but they clearly regard this as insignificant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's simply not true. The discussion about the rocket launch was a discussion about a class of ITN/R candidates, where the argument was that it was too broad. This item is specifically cited at ITN/R.  If you want to remove it, start a discussion. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand what the issue was that prompted that item not being posted. Reread the discussion as well as that on WT:ITN regarding updating the ITNR category for failed launches. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue was the people disputed the significance. The same can be done here, although my objection is on the grounds of quality. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no quality issues with this article. You can argue about the logo (and I'm not unsympathetic to that view), but that's not per se a quality issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - if being sponsored can remove a sport's ITNR significance, then every single sport currently listed should be cut and ITN will need to focus on political developments only. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (though I'd like to see a source for the International broadcasting - everything else is fine). The two opposes above are invalid as far as I can see.  Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just added references for international broadcasting. echidnaLives (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Marked as Ready. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good to go. For people like  making odd claims over the use of logos etc, I suggest they are either ignored or perhaps even banned from such discussions.  Wikipedia has a huge wealth of resources to enable such individuals to actively learn how fair use images etc are utilised.  Perhaps Andrew is unaware of the fact that the logo would not appear on the main page, for example.  A failure of comprehension, and WP:CIR.  If, after all that, these individuals persist in discussions with their own personal opinions on the use of such logos, and without demonstrating they have understood the processes and procedures around such images, they should be removed from the project post-haste for deliberate and targeting disruption.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This incredibly harsh on that particular user. We should be encouraging people to voice their concerns and opinions on such matters even when they risk being wrong. We should not ever be criticising comments made in good faith, even if you happen to disagree. Such a heavy handed approach is in bad taste and would do much more harm than good and I think such comments needlessly escalate tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the potentially heavy handed approach of the above user, but from past experience, Andrew has been vehemently opposed to sports stories making ITNR in general; I fear this may simply have been a "legitimate" justification for opposition this time. The Kip (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. My above concerns have been addressed. I do not see the issue with the logo as it is the official logo of this year's event and these articles are expected to use it. This specific event is ITN/R. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Great article. Great game. One for the ages. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Logo comment Regarding corporate logos, the non-free use rationale for this and others says: If someone wants to challenge that this is excessive, perhaps a broader forum like WP:VP would be better suited.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The current posted picture (right) is not the one in the nomination. Notice that the AFL logo in this is separate and doesn't contain the Toyota logo.  Instead, there's a separate logo for Ford.  Is that because it's a dated picture or what?  Just curious as to which car company we are advertising now and why. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ford Motor Company, because America’s favourite pick-up truck is coming to Australia. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ford sponsor the club Smith plays for. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The picture was taken on Grand Final Day. Note how he is wearing his premiership and Norm Smith Medals. Before he gave the Norm Smith to a cow. We should get WMF to sponsor the Grand Final. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why we consider "de minimus" in images. A logo like that Ford logo while very visible, or the Toyota one in the original race logo, are not the part of the image that you are to focus on, and as such, they are very much fine in free images and do not impact non-free nor the promotional aspect. Heck, if you start going down the other direction, that means we shouldn't mention FIFA at all about World Cup, as they are a brand they want to promote heavily, for example. M asem (t) 03:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Smith is wearing the AFL logo, not the AFL Grand Final Series logo. He also sports the logos of the Geelong Football Club sponsors: Ford, GMHBA and Cotton On. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cotton On is on every AFL uniform. But yes. Trademarked products are functional commercials. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Irwin Glusker
Comment Needs slight expansion from current length (1301 characters). Joofjoof (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Fulcher

 * Support Sufficent breadth and sourcing. Table supported by earlier prose.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Table now has footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louise Fletcher

 * Support Per nom. A couple of citations needed in main article and filmography must be sourced too, but article is strong otherwise. SitcomyFan (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Near Support I think the reckless driving part needs a resolution. Clearly, she didn't serve much time, if any. But something happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources say she cut a deal and did no time. Which if true, may not be covered by media.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when updated a little more - yet another influential person of note that impacted my very being has passed. :( (Also to the above: At least she isn't Broderick...) --SinoDevonian (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She sure isn't Matthew Broderick or Betty Broderick. Their cases end, for better or worse. Broderick Washington Jr., way closer deal, who knows if they're innocent? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A reminder that that article needs a LOT of sourcing work to get it up to par for posting. --M asem (t) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for an RD.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Filmography and Accolade tables still have a number of unreferenced items. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done – tables all cited now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hilary Mantel

 * Absolutely support this. Martin Petherbridge (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is looking pretty good so far. This nom has me feeling rather glum, as only last week I got into reading my first novel by her...--SinoDevonian (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A few citations needed but overall article looks good. SitcomyFan (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is in general in a good shape, better than many other RD noms. But there are still a few tags about lacking sources that need to be addressed. Yakikaki (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Summary of what is required: A citation is needed for the following (perhaps someone who has read the books will be able to find them):
 * Career section
 * Fludd (at the end of the first paragraph)
 * A Place of Greater Safety (third paragraph)
 * A Change of Climate (fourth paragraph)
 * An Experiment in Love (fifth paragraph)
 * The Giant, O'Brien (sixth paragraph)
 * Beyond Black (the sentence at the end of the seventh paragraph of the career section refers to details from this book)
 * The two citations needed in the "Early life" section are possibly less urgent (taking her stepfather's surname, working in a geriatric hospital and department store). Those sentences could be hidden or removed if they cannot be verified.
 * The "Views" and "Personal life and death" sections are cited. --Gaois (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are also missing for a number of bullet-points under "List of works" and "Awards and honours" (Footnotes are in place now. --PFHLai (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)). Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, An obituary published in The Dominion Post (New Zealand) says “her parents Henry, a clerk, and Margaret were English-born from Irish stock; she had two younger brothers. When she was 7, her mother’s lover, Jack Mantel, moved in with the family. He shared a bedroom with her mother while her father moved to another room. Four years later the family, except for her father, moved to Cheshire to escape the local gossip. She never saw her father again and took Mantel as her surname.” From “The Times” but I don’t know the  date; probably republished in the Washington Post. The obit also mentions that after graduating (1973) she “worked as a social worker in a geriatric hospital, and also a a dress seller in a department store” .  PS: surely the article is good enough to go to “Recent Deaths” now! Hugo999 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Close but not quite ready; items in the list of works either need a citation or an ISBN.  Spencer T• C 18:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Well all the references to books quoted as "needing a citation" already have an article on the book in question with thedir own citations, so why do they need another citation? And all the books are listed as by her in latr books (eg Bring up the Bodies boHugo999 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not use another Wikipedia article as reference. --PFHLai (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:CIRCULAR policy: —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the details about her father and stepfather from The Times obit. I did not add the book details, but would point out that the articles on her books have non-Wikipedia references! PS:I couLD quote my lOCal public library catalogue. And if you quote the ISBN number from the book itself, what do you quote as a source without being circular? THe ISBN no, title, year and publisher is all that is inquestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment the references look fine now. I think this is ready, but won't mark my own nomination, adding 'needs attention' instead. Can an admin take a look? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Can't see any issues anymore. Yakikaki (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

{Closed} Referenda in Ukraine (Updated)

 * Oppose - Procedurally, these are sub-national polls, which we don't generally cover. Additionally, the results aren't in. But more than that, these are fake polls being used by the occupying Russian forces to give a false legitimacy to their occupation. In that sense, they are a weapon of war, and the war is already in Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fake polls yes, but they're still significant - countries usually don't formally annex other countries' lands anymore. EditMaker Me (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. I think this becomes significant enough for a blurb only if/when Russia actually annexes the territories. I suspect that will happen next week, as these are clearly being rushed in response to the Ukrainian offensive and are not free or fair referenda. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend renominating in ~eight days. Article already looks very impressive tho, nice work so far!! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we normally post the result of democratic processes (even though this applies in name only here), not the process as such. The result is likely to be the annexation of these territorries, which will then be the story to post.  Sandstein   11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have results to post. News is covering this, but the proper time to post this in ITN is when we have results to discuss.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Genevieve, Sandstein. NYT terms this chapter in political theater "staged voting." – Sca (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Is the preferred plural not referenda ? – Sca (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You do realize that legitimately free votes are not the only newsworthy things to happen. If Russia formally and forcibly annexes these territories, that will be something that people notice and care about.  We can bitch all we want about the referenda being rigged, but that means fuckall with regard to the significance of them.  Lots of things which are immoral, unethical, illegitimate, or just plain evil are still important.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jay: If RU annexes, yes. Perhaps you view that as a foregone conclusion, but it hasn't happened yet. -- Sca (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until territories are annexed, and even then, I'm not so sure this should be posted unless these "Russian territories" are recognized as such by the United Nations.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Russia doesn't physically control all the territory in question. This is an ongoing situation which is covered by the existing ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have Ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine in the news. We don't need a second entry.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait For Results, if there's a positive result, and Russia does indeed proceed to annex the territories, that will indeed then be a blurb-worthy development imo. ✨ <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   13:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is very little doubt about what the result will be; the surprise would be if it was a "no" vote in their own rigged referendum. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be, but until it happens, coming to any conclusions would be WP:SPECULATION. ✨ <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   15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, per king. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the results come in. Accelerate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but in the right context. Very few if any non-Russian media outlets are saying these votes are anything other than "so called" or fake. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because a) it's already in ongoing and is not any more significant of a development than the capture of Mariupol or the recent Kharkiv offensive, and b) because it would be very difficult for Wikipedia to post a blurb that is neutral, because simply stating the result of the referendum without comment would be biased heavily in favour of Russia, who is using this referendum as a form of propaganda, and presenting the results without comment would legitimize it; while stating that the referendum is ignoring all democratic norms in the blurb would present a much more accurate picture, but that would be biased in favour of the Western/Ukrainian standpoint, even if they're correct. The easiest move is to avoid all the blurb neutrality arguments by not posting the referendum at all, hence my vote. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose As this is already covered by ongoing, and Wikipedia ought not to allow itself to be used, even indirectly, for Kremlin propaganda. If there was any hint of legitimacy to these referendums, I might consider an exception and support. But this is just a farce. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until results are out. Sham of course, but potential risk of incorporation into Russia, as it was done with Crimea, is there. Brandmeistertalk  17:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for results, as the importance will be based on how these turn out. --M asem (t) 18:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This user predicts the results will favor annexation by Россия. -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Masem: Just so that I'm clear, do you believe that these referenda are legitimate in the same manner as a free and fair election? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if they are legitimate or "forced", they should be treated as referendum elections as we would any other country in the world. Otherwise, we're imposing a POV on ITN. M asem (t) 00:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't cover the 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum. BD2412  T 00:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico was and would still have been part of the United States both before and after the vote, even if it was honored by the US Congress. This is a situation that involves potential territorial change. I certainly don't have any reason to believe these referendums are legitimate, but if they are handled like Crimea than it is certainly something worth watching. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't cover the 2017 Puerto Rican status referendum either, which had Puerto Rico leaving the U.S. entirely as an option. BD2412  T 02:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The annexation should be posted when it happens, but any mention of the referenda is problematic, as per NorthernFalcon.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Late-cycle coverage Friday: BBC, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose already in ongoing. We *really* shouldn't be arbitrary about this. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate, but what standalone event would you support involving the war short of it ending then? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of a nuclear weapon would probably be blurb worthy, ongoing notwithstanding. Otherwise... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Sham or not, this is certainly a story. Crimea was a similar situation. Whether or not Russia's annexation is recognized, if their people are there and it's being operated as part of Russia then it is notable. I don't see the point of getting concerned about legitimacy - the linked article will explain that to people. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Crimea was not being covered in "ongoing" at the time. This is. No point in having the war at ongoing if we are going to keep nominating developments for blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Rigged votes don't really change anything of substance. Nothing that isn't already covered by the Ongoing 90.210.230.246 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, for the results to be released but generally support as this is an important escalation/development. Not really getting the views that this would 'advance Russian propaganda' as the alternative blurb covers that aspect or we shouldn't include because it will be rigged because we featured 2014 Crimean status referendum twice in fact before the referendum of that concluded and then again once the results of that were released. Tweedle (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until the results are official.
 * DinoSoupCanada (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Coverage Saturday includes AP BBC. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As it has every Saturday this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So? -- Sca (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's still Saturday's story, nobody has results. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Post something when actual annexation occurs. We do post national election and referenda results but this isn't it. These are sham votes conducted by an occupying foreign power, with results pre-determined by Putin, and totally illegal under international law. Posting an ITN item on these "referenda" would give them a perception of legitimacy, which we should not be doing. Nsk92 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, As the war is ongoing, the results won't change anything. Alex-h (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * your statement "the results won't change anything" is completely reckless. It's clear that the result will be in favor of annexation with Russia. Any attempt by Ukraine to regain its territory will already be considered an attack on the Russian Federation. The invasion will open a new and much more cruel phase. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or just as cruel as it has been, though newly affecting many more people. It's still not yet known if Ukraine will attempt to regain the territory by invading it and attacking Russian occupants. Call me optimistic, but maybe it'll pursue legal and diplomatic remediation, prompting less death and misery. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait I will support if (or realistically, when) Russia announces they're planning to annex 15% of Ukraine's territory. That's a fairly significant escalation. RE: what Nsk92 said, I think we can phrase the blurb in a way that describes the event without implying that these sham referendums have any legal legitimacy. <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> 💙 23:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If Russia proceeds to annex the territories, the referendums will have de facto legitimacy as they would be the impetus for such action, even if they are unrecognised by most nation states. This should be expected to happen on Thursday, as the annexation bill is expected to be voted on by the Duma then. ✨ <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   08:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or Friday, according to some reports. -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Preliminary results released are in favour of annexation. (P.S I know it's a sham referendum.) Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the validity problems, Russia doesn't have full control over the territory of the regions for which it is holding referenda. This should be also clarified in the blurb. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Results are in BBC as, expected, falling in favor of being annexed by Russia. --M asem (t) 01:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed that to a favour of joining ("confederating with", "subjecting themselves to" and "entering" are closer to the question, but look ridiculous). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Additional coverage:   – Sca (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this be renominated/bumped up to recent news now that the "referendums" have actually taken place? There's just so many outdated !votes that it'll be hard to tell if/when a consensus forms. <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> 💙 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * if you ask me; I think we should wait until Russia Annex's the territories in the coming days and then renominate this; thats more relevant for ITN purposes than the referendums themselves. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My old vote still stands and I'm ready when you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but I will point out that news this morning is that Putin will formally annex these four areas today (29 Sept) at a ceremony. , so that may be a call for a fresh ITNC based on the close above. --M asem (t) 12:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cherry Valentine

 * Support Tragic news XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. RIP Lyinginstate (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not quite updated ("In February 2022, Cherry Valentine was to embark on...") and the source for that sentence is primary as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: 1 more CN to resolve then this should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 18:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katharine Lee Reid

 * Support Short and sweet. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Hankinson

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Barrow

 * Long enough with 500+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found where they are expected. Earwig found no troubles. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald M. Blinken

 * This wikibio seems a little stubby with only 319 words of prose. The Career section with merely four sentences (I moved one of the five out into the next section.) seems particularly thin. There should be more to write about this guy, right? What did he do while carrying those listed big titles? Would this be useful in some way? --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , how does one define a "stub"? WP:STUBDEF suggests 1500 characters / 300 words, and this has 1820 characters / 319 words. There's not that much to say about him from my archival searches, but perhaps that source can provide another sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, c'mon, Muboshgu. It is technically not a stub but reads and looks like a stub! Do we want nicer things on MainPage or not? Or do we post whatever just happens to pass the minimum standard? This nom still has several days of eligibility remaining. If there are things to enrich this wikibio, please add to it. I just added a sentence to make it 355 words long now. --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it's at 2901 characters and 498 words. There's plenty there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the expansion, Muboshgu. Looking good. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Khmer Rouge Tribunal ends

 * Article on Khmer Rouge Tribunal not yet updated at all. Article on Khieu Samphan updated with a single line. More expansion necessary before this would be appropriate to feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat )
 * Oppose – Three days later there's still no update to the article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 08:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We posted his conviction (way back in 2014); an unsuccessful appeal isn't significant enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics

 * Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb.  Sandstein   11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality alone ITNR is not a requirement for posting anything. Most items we post are not previously approved through ITNR.  In fact I can't find a single item currently listed on the ITN box which is on ITNR, nor can I find any rules that say that we cannot post items which are not on ITNR.  That being said, the target article is NOT up to the quality we expect on the main page.  The bolded article contains very little useful biographical information about the subject beyond their job title, a trite description of their work, and a list of awards.  It's merely a CV masquerading as an article, and not even a good CV at that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics

 * Comment Might be best to merge this with the above blurb regarding the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics, just to save some space Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb.  Sandstein   11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose though I would not have an issue if we covered all three Breakthrough Awards in one nomination (yes we're not going to name winners), given that while there's no mainstream coverage of these, I'm seeing SciAm and Nature coverage. We may need to do something like "The Breakthrough Awards are named, including in Life Sciences to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for developing DeepMind." (the one that is leading the reports I'm seeing). --M asem  (t) 01:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Train (investment advisor)

 * Is this still eligible? --PFHLai (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that this would nomination would be acceptable as it was published that day in The NY Times. The editor that updated the article shortly after he died was using an obit from the funeral home likely written by those close to Train. Thriley (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not use The NY Times to determine the date of eligibility. It is based on the date when news of a death was first published in a reliable source (this can be the NYT, but most of the time it is not, since they tend to publish obits significantly later than the date of death, sometimes months after).  In any case, Train's obit was published in the PenBay Pilot on September 15, 2022, so this is stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Saul Kripke

 * This is a longer article (6000+ words) with quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dean Caswell

 * Support Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kapil Narayan Tiwari

 * Support. Every paragraph is cited. The article's shape/quality resembles Harry Langford and Cal Browning (currently on the Main Page) and it has a photograph. --Gaois (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Greg Lee (basketball)

 * Support Decent breadth and sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Benner

 * Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Hamblin

 * Support Everything seems to be sourced properly. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan M. Siegal

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above, looks alright. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Mobilization in Russia

 * Comment - he mobilized troops in February didn't he, moving them to the border with Ukraine prior to the invasion? I'd have thought the blurb would need to be more specific about what's changed... as I understand it conscription may be on the cards now... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. Russia started its illegal invasion mainly with contract soldiers. The professional army. A mobilization means 'random' civilians will be conscripted and forced to fight in ukraine or face punishment of up to 15 years in prison for refusal. Your last sentence is exactly what has happened. Just that conscription will be happening now, has started today and isn't a maybe anymore. 188.118.189.42 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait: (ec) while possibly a major development for the invasion, I'd rather wait to see how does this deploy, because this could easily be relegated to Ongoing -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is already at ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is why we have the ongoing.
 * M asem (t) 21:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This is mostly covered by ongoing, I think the 4 upcoming referendums in the LPR, DPR and two other Ukrainian regions (and potential annexation afterwards) might be the bigger story in all this. I do think this is the beginning of a major escalation which could be blurb worthy even with the war in ongoing, but it's not there yet. ✨ <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   21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) – notable escalation in the war but actual implementation/effect is unknown and might not be known for some time. Ongoing remains sufficient for this imo. The referendums for LPR, DPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are likely the next event that would warrant a blurb, barring massive escalations and/or discovery of further atrocities. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support : Russia has started mobilizing its population for military service, and it's significant independent of the invasion. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait to improve the article. I saw the references and then the Russian version, and it looks like it's a translation so I marked the talk page. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The nominated article does not seem to be reliable and perhaps that's because it's based on Russian sources. For example, it says "Previously, mobilization in Russia was announced only twice: at the beginnings of World War I and the Great Patriotic War during World War II."  This is not correct as there were multiple mobilisations during the Russo-Japanese War (source). Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The heavy use of Russian language sources is clearer now as the talk page says "This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Мобилизация в России (2022) from the Russian Wikipedia." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support a major event being reported on most news outlets. <span style="background: black; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"> 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;  𝕽𝕴𝕻 🇬🇧  &#124; ☎️ &#124; 📄 01:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a significant escalation of the war that is widely covered. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In an ongoing war, it's only natural that dead/wounded/captured/missing soldiers be replaced, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Added alt-blurb. Accelerate! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered by the on-going item. This is very much a part of Russia's invasion. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to support this largely based on the quality of the article, but Andrew's comment about inaccurate information is concerning. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we really should not be arbitrary about this; all these items are covered by ongoing. Banedon (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Headline news around the world and a substantial escalation of the conflict. Yes it's part of the wider conflict already in the Ongoing section, but the article is excellent. That's enough to tip me into supporting an otherwise borderline nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose after a long thought. I acknowledge the fact that this is a major news in the whole story, but it's still just a move made by one of the sides in the conflict. If we want to cover this with a blurb apart from the ongoing item, we should perhaps focus on the protests against the policy that resulted in mass arrests throughout the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not certain this is newsworthy enough. I'm trying to figure out what would merit a separate blurb on Russia's end. I think the only thing that would qualify would be if they went completely to guns over butter. But this is still just a partial mobilization. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There seems to be some sort of hierarchy in people's minds where a blurb is "better" or a promotion from ongoing. It's not; it's arguably better to be ongoing as they stay there until pulled.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, Andrew, Kiril. Domestic opposition to the call-up seems more interesting.   – Sca (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above, it is still ongoing.Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant as the first mobilization in Russia since World War II. Already has resulted in large protests and a large emigration (as Sca noted) making it even more significant. Pithon314 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most important topics this week. It's not every day that a European country mobilizes the population, breaking through every news source. PLATEL (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, maybe with blurb mentioning protests. Khuylo Prez deciding to flood the battlefield with reservists is definitely important development and maybe even breaking point. Damn, one more failed exam and I'll have to choose between frontline and prison. a! rado (C✙T) 22:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This is clearly more of a news than all other current ITN items put together. This level of mobilisation has not been seen in Europe in at least several decades. Filing this under ongoing does not suffice. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Daß Wölf 01:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support – We should not have both a blurb and an entry in "ongoing". If we agree for this to run as a blurb, and I think the significance of the development justifies it, we should remove the item from ongoing for as long as the blurb is up.  Schwede 66  02:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that an item should generally not be in "Ongoing" if it has a related blurb, and the Bucha posting should be considered an oversight and not a precedent. However, I don't believe we have any codified procedures on handling this. —Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Yes, it's covered under ongoing, but this is a major development and has received widespread, global, coverage. Schwede66's idea of suspending the ongoing mention might be a good solution. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm beginning to think that has a point. We must remember that it is important to determine whether or not these news items, if they had occurred independently of the Russo-Ukraine War, would have been considered sufficiently significant and newsworthy as individual blurb postings on ITN. I think we're finding that we are getting so emotionally caught up in the outcomes and machinations of a highly unpopular war that we might be unwittingly inserting systemic bias into the equation. I don't think we would be posting these sorts of blow-by-blow developments for any other war in any other part of the globe; we certainly haven't done so for previous wars to my knowledge.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Darrell Mudra

 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you have a ref for the coaching table? Otherwise this is good to go.  Spencer T• C 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , much of the table is sourced in prose, especially tenures, single season team records, and postseason/bowls. Conference records will be tougher. Sports Reference, for instance, only includes the "major" schools. It can be done, but it's a bit of work, and is it really necessary? ITN doesn't require everything be cited, just the major stuff. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will let others decide. I looked at the existing references and probably 90% seems covered, like the overall school record, but not year-by-year stuff covered in the table, which is why I brought that up. (e.g. my spot check on showed that the prose is appropriately covered, but groups 3 years of Adams State record, so I don't know where the info for the individual seasons come from.  Spencer T• C 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the Adams State Hall of Fame page just lists the overall record, without a season-by-season breakdown. I'm sure it can be cited if I put more time into it, but this level of citation shouldn't be necessary as plenty of it is cited and nobody is challenging specific season-by-season records. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in here: Is it a good idea to remove from the stats table the less important details that are too hard to verify? It's like the Filmography and Discography sections of wikibios of people in the entertainment industry. Things should be referenced as much as reasonably achievable. While I don't think we need perfection there to qualify for RD, there should not be eye-catching stretches of unreferenced materials on the nominated wikipage. Can the table be simplified to reduce the work needed to get sourcing done? --PFHLai (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The table should not be "simplified." There is consensus to have coaching record tables like that on all CFB head coach articles, and they haven't been required to be sourced in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the table for now. Much of the data in the table is sourced in the prose, but some of the season-by-season records aren't. I don't doubt it's accuracy - here's a news article from the end of Mudra's first season with Adams State confirming their total record (but not their conference record) - but I can't find an easy-to-source "record book" for Adams State with season-by-season records. No doubt I could find the season-by-season records with more time, but I have a busy day today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Adams State yearly records are sourced at Template:1959 Rocky Mountain Conference football standings and analogous templates for other years. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That is helpful. Newspapers.com is a great resource, but finding what you are looking for can be a complicated process if you don't know what to search for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I went through the Mudra-relevant conference standings templates and only about half have references, the others don't. That should be remedied at some point. I do think this is sourced enough to go up as is, I can look for more of these standings sources later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raju Srivastav

 * Support - Cited and updated. It's a short article, but not to the point of being a stub.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Well sourced and updated. -- 125.59.140.165 (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready after 3 supports including mine.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Correctly structured, and all the information, albeit short, is cited properly. Mjeims (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Émile Antonio

 * At 972 B (170 words) of readable prose, it needs some expansion in addition to referencing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not improved at all in the past four days. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maarten Schmidt

 * Support Dutch-born American astronomer who measured the distances of quasars, article cited, updated. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Relatively short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 18:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Langford

 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Vernon Dvorak

 * It's a stub at 1330 B (207 words) of readable prose. Is there anything more that we can add? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herb Lusk

 * Support Looks good enough. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly good enough, but one part of the professional career section makes little sense to me: In the third game of his career on September 27, 1976, he fumbled the ball with 12 seconds remaining in the first half after he opted to run instead of running out the clock. This led to the Eagles' 10–3 over the Washington Redskins, with Philadelphia ultimately losing the game in sudden-death overtime. Could you reword this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * my bad – forgot to complete that sentence. Thanks for spotting that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maury Wills

 * From 38 sourced cited to 60, ready for review. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Nicely done, . Maury was indeed an awesome player. (His stint as a manager was another story!)--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ready, good work. Jusdafax (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy

 * Depends The article notes Levon Aronian saying young players are often suspected of cheating and high-level players are "pretty much paranoid". Is this true? If so, what makes this episode different? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, MC is the five-time reigning WC, and walked out/forfeited a game after one move, so he basically disrupted the tournament directly in protest. Not sure if your edit summary was rhetorical, but cheating would be from getting external assistance ie looking up suggestions from a chess supercomputer during toilet breaks, or other smuggling/transmission events Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. As his title wasn't on the line, and the tournament seemingly continued with him in it, I think I'll pass. The lack of any actual allegation of cheating in this game or the earlier tournament he quit also lessens the oomph, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Could you please explain how this is notable? It appears to be just an online game. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C  04:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The alt blurb appears to be saying Hans Niemann made one move; I think he made 2 moves and Magnus Carlsen made 1 move (see the board in the article). <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 08:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an online match, but it was part of the Champions Chess Tour 2022, a prestigious tournament. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Niemann made two moves, but only one before buddy flipped out; I've changed "by" to "to", hope that helps! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's been much discussed because of how unusual it is, but there has been (as far as I was last updated on this) no formal accusation, no formal investigation, no clear aftermath or clear lasting effects on the circuit. It's a lot of murmuring, rumor, thoughts but little concrete facts. Just a lot of speculation about what happened. It may be worth it to consider again if significant moves with tangible consequences on the field are made, such as truly bombshell accusations or an incredibly disruptive investigative launched. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not fit for the main page, but I want to point out that it's remarkable either way - Either it's actual cheating in over-the-board play by one of the best players in the world, or it's extreme unprofessionalism and borderline witch hunt instigation by the world champion. There isn't any concrete evidence of cheating, but it's still a major event regardless of the outcome. AviationFreak💬 05:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh for sure. I do agree it's a major thing. The intangibility (for lack of a better word) created by lack of a straightforward and formal accusation is, in its own way, remarkable even if that very intangibility is a major reason for me why it isn't a good fit. I do wish it had more of a... shape (again, lack of a better word, it's late...) to it to qualify because of how fascinating and remarkable it all has been. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  05:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - While this is certainly the biggest news in the chess community worldwide, I don't think it warrants a blurb. This was not a major event (not even OTB) and the game itself (where the one-move resignation occurred) is likely not notable enough for an article (the article covers the controversy as a whole, which started a couple weeks ago). As much as I want this to be a blurb because of my love of chess, I don't think it meets the blurb standard. AviationFreak💬 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support (Altblurb) The more I look into this, the idea of today's hottest grandmaster and reigning (but not defending) world openweight champion rage quitting to a relative noob for the second consecutive loss on a previously stellar record is a pretty big deal. Imagine if Amanda Nunes just up and left the first next time she was eyepoked or kicked in the junk by Julianna Peña and the ref didn't see it. Granted, in her case, such an unsportsmanlike tantrum would cost her the strap, but chess is too much a game of wits to draw too fine an analogy with "human cockfighting". Plus, it would show those regulars in the peanut gallery (who know who they are) that ITN is not purely a Caroline royal mouthpiece. Again, the kings and queens in chess are different than in "human chess", but you get my point, one small step for a pwn. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would expect at least a formal investigation with reported findings and penalties, not mere allegations. That said, Houston Astros sign stealing scandal and Deflategate were not blurbed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – It's a relatively minor tournament, but if this article were of particularly high quality, I would definitely be open to seeing it featured. Right now, it's unclear from the article what the impact of this issue is. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. There isn't a lot of chess news on ITN other than winning a championship. This would be different and interesting. 331dot (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But pretty much every sports-related blurb, not just chess, is about winning a championship. —Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And every world champion typically played the game through to whatever may be his or her equivalent to checkmate (or inescapably near). Except in pro wrestling, of course, for screwy reasons. This is (maybe?) a brand new low. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Except one certain ITNR item about rowing! Howard the Duck (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Allegations and innuendo are improper per WP:SUSPECT. And the idea that there was cheating in a game after just one move is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The cheating is insinuated to have occurred in a different match between these two players earlier this month. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Huge news in the chess world, certainly has gotten some RS coverage due to the more... sensational aspects of the story. However, I see it is also nominated for DYK and I'd be just as content to see it featured there. Davey2116 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Interesting, unusual, in the news. Great way to dilute the usual postings of random unelected monarchs deaths and wars in places where wars have been endemic for centuries 5.44.170.26 (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unusual situation, but forfeiting one match in an obscure tournament isn't much of an impact. Carlsen hasn't even accused Niemann of anything - it's all gossip and speculation. I do find chess interesting but Carlsen's increasingly eccentric whims (e.g. his decision not to defend the world championship) aren't suitable for ITN. We'll blurb the new world champion when that happens next year. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A niche sideshow without general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A career-defining series of upsets. If it worked for X-Pac, it can work for this plucky kid, too. In a general notability way, I mean, details better vary. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does chess have kayfabe the same way wrestling does? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if it did. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I only learned it had cheating today, no clue. But I've always figured this is the "sport" that retained the primal competitive nature while wrestling stayed athletic. Again, absolutely an assumption, no reason to trust it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Commen The candidates tournament was a more significant chess event. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Big story as Carlsen is the world's top rated player and this is definitely getting coverage. Article looks fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not generally in the news. Absent from primary RS main pages AP, BBC, Guardian, DW, France 24 (AFP) and NYT. Only CNN offered an account under its 'Live Updates' heading. – Sca (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "The cheating row that is rocking chess", says The Guardian. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Local boy quietly makes good, politely interjects the CBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. About as big of news as it gets in the chess world. Probably bigger news than the INT/R items we have for yearly chess tournaments. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm leaning oppose here, but only because there is quite a lot of backstory and circumstance that you need to know to understand the significance of the story. That isn't something we can give in a short blurb, and it doesn't appear that we have anywhere to send people that they can learn all this in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments immediately above and Gotitbro's comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Chess controversies of this scale are extremely rare and a potential cheating incident against the reigning World Champion is a major deal. I remember that the last major cheating controversy involved Borislav Ivanov, but it was a suspected case at tournaments with significantly lower rated players. The article is also in very good shape. Great work!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The lead para does not make clear the significance of this for chess. Why is this/should be in the news now and not when the first allegation of cheating occurred? Why is "their" used in "losing their first match"? And for a continuing controversy/scandal whose scale is not clear (in the form of no official action) this appears to be better suited for DYK than ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about cheating now, it's about the world champion throwing a match to a mediocre opponent, and "their" is tidier than "Carlsen and Niemann's". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Meh. ZZZzzz.... – Sca (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This feels to me more like Carlsen's personal drama. Carlsen also announced last year that he would not defend his title in the 2023 world championship unless one particular other player competed, and subsequently announced that he won't be playing in the tournament just a couple months ago. We don't really know why he resigned this game, or what's going on. TarkusAB talk / contrib 01:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is certainly something interesting in the chess world, but the article goes too far to make claims this is a controversy. This really should be a section in Carlsen's own article, barring further developments of the story. --M asem (t) 01:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I'm not inherently opposed to this being posted, but I struggle to see the main page relevance when nothing has been proven. If Niemann did cheat, then I'd support this. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been proven that Carlsen forfeited a match/resigned after one move. That's highly controversial. I don't know what sport or game you find best, but if its top-ranked player(s) "took the ball and went home", wouldn't that matter regardless of why? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that it's a news story. However, we didn't blurb when Lewis Hamilton failed to attend the compulsory award ceremony after losing the 2021 F1 season. The blurb we ran in ITN for the end of the season didn't even mention the controversy. It was relevant to those that follow the sport, but it wasn't important enough for ITN. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did/does that controversy have an article? Was it nominated? If not, that's the difference; can't hit what we can't see. Less objectively, I feel pulling out of a race after one lap would have been more equivalent than skipping a ceremony (with advance notice) after losing normally. Especially if it was for no apparent reason (rather than, say, crashing the car). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Binnie

 * Support Article is a bit short, but seems in good shape. --Bedivere (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valeri Polyakov

 * Looks ready to go - The page is classified as a good article. Besides the categories (which could be reorganized better/organized in alphabetical order) there are no issues with the page. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Clean and neat, looks ready to go — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizstomania716 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted A couple of outstanding "citation needed" tags, but only on relatively minor points. Generally well cited.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I mean, why stop there? He is a record holder after all and we did post the guy who was the first to go into open space or wahtever 5.44.170.26 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a GA, so in that sense it would be a lovely page to feature. But even as a space travel aficionado, I was unfamiliar with him and his particular record. The first spacewalk is (to me personally) more famous. The shortness of the article (despite it being a GA) suggests to me that he isn't really a major figure. Perhaps on a similar level as ~ten of the twelve people who have walked on the moon. I don't expect we'll be blurbing most of them either. I'm fairly neutral on the idea, though. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for RD, neutral for a blurb due to significance - most people that go to space end up doing something for the first time. That said I wouldn't oppose it. Polyamorph (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) State funeral of Elizabeth II

 * Oppose It is fair to add an event to ongoing if it has a long tail, as this one has. But the funeral is not sufficiently distinct from the death and mourning period to warrant a separate blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus Elizabeth II is already the featured article, so an additional blurb about her on ITN is completely unnecessary. rawmustard (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The featured article, featured image and DYK are all centred around her because of the fact her state funeral is today XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is in ongoing. If it is blurbed it will still be on the main page for up to a week or so. I originally supported the blurb but this is too much. Let the ongoing go tomorrow and get back on with our lives! Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's much more in the news than the current ITN blurbs. And it would be consistent with the other main page sections today, which are focussed on this major event. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This specific article is already in ongoing. If the nomination is suggesting swapping the ongoing for a blurb, that seems alright. I would also think it's reasonable to blurb once it drops from ongoing after the funeral concludes. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be okay with me & just let it move down the ITN list naturally, yes. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've had some discussion about this below. It is currently in ongoing and that will be removed tomorrow. Polyamorph (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Largely talked about and has been long awaited Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The funeral is a known consequence of the death. A somewhat analogous comparison is the swearing in of a head of government after an election - there is no need to blurb the swearing in because it is a known consequence of the election outcome. It is sufficient for the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II to remain as an Ongoing item for another 8 (or more) hours. But I don't see the need for the article to be a blurb again. Chrisclear (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are already plenty of references to Her Majesty and the monarchy on the front page. Further, this is an ongoing event. No need to add to ITN. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – With all due respect to her late majesty, coverage of this royal saga has been omnipresent – and overly detailed for non-Commonwealth audiences. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurbs are not awards we give for "worthiness" or "level of coverage". Ongoing is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We had the death, and the current ongoing. The ceremony is not the important matter compared to either. As established with the ongoing (in addition to TFA being about the the Queen) M asem (t) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose does not meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also already in ongoing, featured article and already was an ITN item. Enough. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I struck part of my comment because I, actually, totally forgot that we ran the death itself lmao. The death was blurbed, so blurbing this is unnecessary. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support swapping out the ongoing for a blurb—if for no other reason than it is the largest gathering of heads of state that we may not see the likes of it again. (This American is saying this knowing that it is unlikely to change the outcome here at all.)  Imzadi 1979  →   16:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we covered her death, and we included the general mourning period and funeral in Ongoing. We don't need to reblurb the actual funeral. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's getting a bit ridiculous now, isn't it? The front page currently has an Elizabeth II Featured Article, the article in Ongoing, every single DYK article is about her or the monarchy, and on top of that she's also the Featured Picture. Perhaps we should replace the Wikipedia logo in her honor as well? YD407OTZ (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support although I realize this is futile at this point, and I recognize the consensus is firmly in the oppose camp. This doesn't happen every day. The news coverage of the death and funeral has been intense and ongoing. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not the Commonwealth Wikipedia. This is The English Wikipedia. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already in Ongoing, Elizabeth II is TFA and all of today's DYK hooks are items related to the funeral. Perhaps all a bit too much. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I commented in that discussion. At the time, I didn't realize ALL of the DYK hooks were related to the funeral. Holy shit. Perhaps I'm not in such a hurry to support this after all. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: QE II
Support but I would let it run one or two more days max. Its still has a small news tail. --M asem (t) 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until midnight on Canada's west coast. She was Queen there too and Canada has also declared a day of mourning and commemoration. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:A047:2435:58BF:7E8F (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Burial completed, remove now The burial was completed. The funeral is no longer ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until end of day USA/Canada as per 2A02 XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait No harm in having it up an extra day or two - it will be in tomorrow's newspapers, after all. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Never said we were, I meant that it was still in the news. And receiving regular updates, too. Anyway, moot now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to rush this off the template. We don't have other things waiting in line for the space. I'd let this stay till maybe end of 20 Sept., UTC, but no longer. I believe editors are still active there. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait 24 hrs or so. It's going to be THE news tomorrow in most of the world. But after that I'm fine with removal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove at midnight Vancouver time per the IPv6. The ongoing event is "over" and the day of mourning will officially end in British Columbia in seven hours. People will continue to find the articles on Queen Elizabeth II they want even if it's not in ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait in consideration of the fact that this will be in the news for most of the world tomorrow. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  00:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Misnomer comment There was no consensus above to blurb the funeral, where it would remain on the MP for days/weeks. While this might be an IAR case, it's a misnomer and a sloppy presentation to have a past death and completed funeral continue to be listed as "Ongoing".—Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No more or less so than having anything in "ongoing" where the initial event has concluded but reaction, fallout, consequential events, etc are still ongoing. The end of the day in Canada's westernmost timezone (the westernmost Commonwealth Realm) seems the appropriate point to take it down to me. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd figured that, too, but Niue seems to have taken this honour (UTC-11). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would never have guessed that a territory with such close ties to New Zealand would place itself on the opposite side of the date line to it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's strange for sure. In New Zealand (UTC +12 hours) it is just after 11pm on Tuesday 20 September. However in Niue (UTC -11 hours) it is just after midnight on the same date. Chrisclear (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove it now --Bedivere (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But an explanation why, please? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is no longer an ongoing event, isn't it? Bedivere (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove it now -- this whole thing was completely ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we did not need to make the entire frontpage about the Queen. I was told that we would remove this from ongoing after the funeral... the funeral is over. Now is the time. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Midnight Pacific Time The funeral is over, but the holiday is directly connected and ongoing. Retrospective news tomorrow is too indirect. No offense, America. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Australia will be holding a national memorial day for Queen Elizabeth II on September 22; New Zealand will be holding a public holiday and state memorial service for Queen Elizabeth II on September 26. It's not taking up that much room in ongoing, and it's evident that we're not quite finished with the story yet. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th I'm worried about; what are we supposed to tell people who say there's nothing going on in that majority of the week? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove Now. Funeral is over. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove this crap. Wikipedia is not an arm of the United Kingdom, the British Royal Family, the Commonwealth, or any other memorial based consideration. Who gives a crap if the public holiday continues. This didnt even have consensus to post to begin with. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove while I don't approve of some of the language here and in previous discussions, it is now time to remove. Polyamorph (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is still very much in the news. For example, it's on the front page of the NYT, with multiple items such as "Queen Elizabeth was the anchor of Britain’s identity. King Charles now will take on that role."  Most of our other blurbs don't even get a mention because they are stale.
 * As for updates, there is still furious activity. For example, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II shows 41 updates on my watchlist.  That's more than 10 times the number of updates to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same period.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Who knew someone beloved would attract more people than something despised? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- still waiting for this to be removed... consensus is overwhelmingly in favor. Although given what happened with the COVID-19 ongoing removal, I don't blame admins for being more cautious. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In contrast, this discussion has at least been going on for hours. —Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support & remove now The event has ended, and let's revert back to Wikipedia from Elizapedia. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or embrace Chuckopedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until midnight UTC this evening, per PFHLai and Ad Orientem above. The item is in the news today, and people are likely to still be looking for it on Tuesday (which is the purpose of ITN, lest we forget), but beyond that I agree it's not ongoing any more. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove. It made sense to put this in ongoing, but the events are now over. Time to move on. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Moot. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The events are not over. There's the ceremonies in other realms, as detailed above.  And the royal family is still in mourning so some UK government functions are suspended -- I was just listening to a report that new ministers can't be appointed until next week by the new PM for this reason.  So, there are continuing events and impacts.  The relevant articles are still being actively updated and that's what matters for ongoing entries. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moot as far as general significance is concerned. This isn't UK/ANZAC Wiki. -- Sca (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Australia and NZ are not the UK. There have been multiple ceremonies in multiple places and they are not over yet.  This is still ongoing.  We'll know it's over when the news coverage stops and the article updates cease. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal Is the funeral over? Yes, has she been buried? Yes. It needs to be removed now. Whatever else is done in the next few days, it's not that relevant anymore. Let her rest. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment it is not even on the BBC news anymore. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  14:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A reminder: news websites tailor the stories on their front page based on IP geolocation. For me in the UK, stories about the funeral are currently third and sixth on the BBC News home page. The ranking of stories on website home pages is not a good basis for supporting or opposing any ITN nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove As it is now Tuesday (at least) everywhere.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove - Still in the news but not ongoing. EditMaker Me (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. There will still be link to Elizabeth II for two more days in the FA box. --Tone 15:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Guizhou bus crash

 * I would require further expansion of the article before featuring it on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It appears long enough to post, and the connection to China's "zero COVID" policy suggests enough importance for this disaster outside of meeting WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Not a casual bus accident, raising a lot of questions in the press and Chinese population. Notable enough and article being long enough. 109.37.130.69 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feared for my life when being driven in a similar way for an event at the HK Wikimania and so sympathise with the victims. But it's still just a bus plunge and the COVID connection seems incidental.  These things happen all the time: "Death toll in northern Mexico bus crash rises to 20"; "Twenty bus passengers burn to death after horror crash in Nigeria"; "Bus plunges into 75-meter-deep Costa Rican ravine"; "Jharkhand: 7 killed, several injured as bus falls off bridge in Hazaribag"; "Poonch: Death toll in mini-bus accident rises to 12"; "Death toll rises to 7 in tragic accident in Jharsuguda as bus hits coal laden truck"; "16 children and 3 adults die in South African collision"; "Myanmar bus crash death toll climbs to 13"; "Nineteen persons burnt to death in Abuja auto crash".  These are just in the last week. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at every article you stating and I agree they are all bus plunge stories. But after reading the Wikipedia bus plunge article and the main reference, this particularly accident is not a bus plunge. Even note that this bus accident is also published in the New York Times (that stopped writing bus plunge articles) (see here). 109.37.130.69 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes, and most other major sources covering it, are covering it in context of China's zero-COVID policy, making it more a footnote there, rather than its own separate story. M asem (t) 02:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose in truth the problem with this article is that it really is an adjacent part of China's response to COVID and not a major transport accident that will have ramifications for a long time. It has highlighted the problem of China's quarantine approach and should be discussed in that context. --M asem (t) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Isn't part of the news cycle, and doesnt have any broader importance. 2607:9880:2D28:A8:45AF:B4E8:4F21:88E8 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, zero COVID isn't "broader importance"? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If this crash affects the policy somehow, that could count as a broadening, but the policy affecting the crash is a narrowing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Heavy loss and enough coverage makes it notable for ITN.Alex-h (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Alex-h. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The article is shaping up, nice work so far! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Holonyak

 * Support. I also did a quick conversion of "Awards and honors" to a bulleted list to make it a little more coherent. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Fiona

 * Wait An outage is not significant enough to post on its own, again noting the situation with the typhoon hitting Japan too. --M asem (t) 21:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support President Biden has declared a state of emergency and we have an article for this one. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine storm, no deaths as of yet, poor power grid... <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ordinary storm, no damage or victims reported (yet). Stop taking "emergency declarations" as decisive for ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. That blurb also won't work, it's all over the place. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hold off until it becomes a major hurricane (would be the first this AH season) or has a major impact somewhere. Drdpw (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Fiona heads for Domincan Republic after "catastrophic" damage in Puerto Rico. – Sca (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd recommend switching up the blurb before considering to post that. Very untidy. Kline &#124; yes? 13:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for damages to be known, obviously. Even a category 1 has the potential to be catastrophic, but it's just too early to know if Hurricane Fiona was. <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> 💙 18:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently is a Cat3 as it heads into more Caribbean islands this morning. But Cat size is not a reason to post, obviously. M asem (t) 12:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Tues. coverage indicates relatively few casualties despite the storm's violence.  – Sca (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per Vanilla Wizard. The damages are yet to be determined/known.

This system is over the Turks and Caicos islands and is potentially heading for Bermuda. However, it's too early to tell. Sarrail (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to be 5 people dead now. The power and water damage to Puerto Rico is starting to look significant. It just got upgraded to Category 4 - might even hit 5, though looks like it will only side-swipe Bermuda. Otherwise there's not much left to hit - though I suppose it could be a big problem if it hits Cape Breton Island as a Category 2. Though based on the Puerto Rico damage alone this might be hitting ITN. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it's hitting Cape Breton Island as a category 2 - particularly the Strait of Canso; if it takes out the Causeway then this must be ITN. It's already caused the lowest observed pressure in Canada. Quite probably the most powerful storm to hit Canada. Sable Island took a direct hit - hopefully it's still there. Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose – Reports from Puerto Rico speak of devastation but the effects described don't seem amount to that (at least to me). The already crippled power grid (it's been completely unstable or poorly fixed in the 5 years since Irma and Maria) was taken down again and there were extensive rescues, but nothing that sets it above routine hurricanes in an area no longer able to handle them well. Effects elsewhere in the Caribbean so far seem significant but not unusual as well. Likely worth revisiting when Fiona reaches Canada as a non-tropical entity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Fiona is heading for Nova Scotia, Canada. If the damages are enough, it may be in the In the News section. Sarrail (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Marginal notability, awful quality.144.121.66.230 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Typhoon Nanmadol

 * Only as a comment, we also have Hurricane Fiona making landfall in Puerto Rico. Obviously would not combine them, but without significant death tolls, the landfall of either is not significant, and posting one w/o the other would be bias. M asem (t) 21:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait. No impacts yet to make this worthy of posting. No sense in jumping the gun right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per DarkSide830. -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Oppose Not worthy of being posted unless a significant amount of fatalities occur. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen my share of FA typhoon articles, so I'm not impressed by a list entry. One to keep our eye out for, I hope someone will write an independent article on it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Two fatalities reported. – Sca (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It could still go up but only losing 2 over the storm makes it rather benign and while we have no MINIMUMDEATHs, still probably doesn't merit posting. M asem (t) 12:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update The latest BBC report is "Mudslides and flooding as typhoon batters Japan" It seems that Japan has got off lightly as the super typhoon slackened in strength after making landfall.  So, that's good news compared to initial forecasts.  But we only do bad news here, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We do good news, just never acknowledge not-so-bad weather. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – significant event but not to the level of ITN. Japan is one of the most well-equipped nations in the world when it comes to tropical cyclones. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The separate article looks quite lovely right now! I do feel like the current "Preparations and impact" section is rather limited and short and might need to be split up so that the impact can be expanded further. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vlado Milunić

 * All fine here, posting. --Tone 08:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cal Browning

 * Long enough with 500+ words of prose. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Formatting looks okay, but it would be better if news article titles can appear in the list of references, rather than having the publication dates appear twice. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Protests in Iran against Guidance Patrol

 * Oppose From what I can see, this doesn't appear to be a major widespread protest at this point, and certainly the article doesn't give the impression of ongoing daily coverage of this story. --M asem (t) 13:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed "ongoing" from the title, since it's not clear if the protests are still on. At the same time, I think the news is important enough to feature on the first page, even if it took place only over 2 or 3 days. Ideophagous (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The protests are still ongoing. See Guardian article from a few hours ago. Ideophagous (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty major at this point actually. Please check the article and the news again. -- Ideophagous (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There are three types of nominations- recent death, blurb, and ongoing- and you're the first person I've ever seen use all of them in a single nom. What, exactly, do you want? -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As the nominated wikiarticle is not a biography, it cannot be an RD nom. The Biography section currently has only one sentence. Looks like a case of WP:BLP1E. I'm removing RD from the nom template. --PFHLai (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Ideophagous (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Nominator removed ongoing from the title. Noteworthy protests, international coverage and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Generally, we require protests to be very large scale and receiving extensive new coverage. Conceding some coverage, I'm not seeing enough to meet our usual standard here at ITN. If the situation changes, I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , Wide scale and extensive coverage already achieved at this point I believe. Ideophagous (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem: Hi. I think the death of this woman and the protests now has enough coverage. many of well-known personalities, politicians, national leaders and celebrities reacted to his death and the ongoing protests. Yes, the protests are still ongoing in Iran nationwide and several people are dead. at least 80 major cities, including Tehran and other major cities are now involved.
 * Recent media coverage: Reuters: Internet restricted in Iran, New York Times: Protests Intensify in Iran, Crisis24: Anti-government protests likely in cities nationwide, Euro News: Protests escalate across Iran, VOA: ... Spread to 16 Provinces, Al Arabiya: Iran unrest death toll increases, CNN: Violent crackdown doesn't slow protest, NPR: Protests erupt, Al-Monitor: Protests show 'another path' possible for Iran.
 * These are some of the media coverage in past 24 hours. Jeeputer  <sup style="font-weight:bold; color:#006B3C">Talk  21:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * check my response to Ad Orientem. Ideophagous (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think the same. Just another wave of protests with clashes. No exceptional political measures have been taken to bring order, so it's not ITNR. For now. Happen in Iran, France or the smallest island in the Pacific. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the protests have to be "exceptional" to make it to the front page. After all, if they fade away like previous protests, they will soon be replaced by other news. Otherwise, they could even stay for a while under "ongoing events". I would argue that if similar protests had happened in France, the vote would have already been done in favor. Part of the problem is that not enough experienced editors are improving the articles (Death of Mahsa Amini and September 2022 Iranian protests), which keeps their quality low.-- Ideophagous (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose These were/are protests against mandatory hijab rules, not police brutality. This idea that a beating even happened is far from certain, and certainly denied. There's wide coverage, sure, but it does no good if we misreflect it. The allegations in the lead are not covered in the body. Even if they were facts, that's bad writing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The altblurb is better now, as is the lead, but not enough to change my vote. The body still needs elaboration. The line between whether most see this as a big death or big protest story remains blurry (maybe that's OK?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The recent protests are clearly about Mahsa Amini's death, not specifically or only about hijab rules. Read Washington Post.-- Ideophagous (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the protests are the main thing here, the section about them should be considered the target article. As such, it should be clearer about what most protestors wanted. It currently only suggests "Women, Life, Freedom" and "death to the dictator". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The death of the young women is clearly the trigger of the recent protests, as indicated by the sources. Obviously the protests are not going to be about her specifically, since there are many different concerns the protestors have (which this recent incident re-triggered, again as the sources indicate). Protests have been taking place in Iran on and off since 2019, over the economic situation, prices, treatment of women (usually women take their headscaves in public in protest), the corruption in the whole system, the Islamic rules, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The beating is certainly denied, but not "far from certain", unless you choose to take a side in the matter. Feel free to suggest improvements though. Ideophagous (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When I see claims that contradict each other on how something I didn't witness occurred, they're all far from certain. I suggest WP:NPOV. If I happen to want to improve anything beyond today's lead corrections, which is unlikely, I just will (as can you). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Article looks decent and up to par, but the scale of the protests is unclear. Expansion of the article might help, but I don't know if these protests are getting quite enough traction for an international newsstory. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * RD - It doesn't look like there's consensus to blurb, so I guess we should put it in RD? Imposterbruh (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need a copy edit before that. Example "broadcasting various videos of the violent method of arresting women by Mortality police officers in the cyber space, indicates the violent treatment of the police against women." Also, it should be noted that qualification for an RD requires a standalone article. ITNC is free to support an RD in these cases (and usually does), but it is not automatic.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RD is for biographies. This wikiarticle is not a biography. --PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Massive protests in Iran against the theocratic government. --Bedivere (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * True as that may be, the article describes them as "protests against Mehsa's murder". Calling it a murder in Wikipedia's voice and referring to her by (misspelled) first name is bad enough, but missing the point only makes it worse. The lead is just awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with that particular sentence, you can simply fix it. "Mehsa" or "Mahsa" are probably both correct given that the name is non-European to begin with, but that also can easily be fixed. You opposition over these minor issues is rather puzzling.-- Ideophagous (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The synthesis of unnamed witness accounts and unspecified medical opinions into original research not stated explicitly by any of the sources (some of which have a conflict of interest) isn't a minor problem. Using that OR to side with the activists' agendas and downplay the police's provided evidence and explanation instead of presenting the information neutrally is not a minor problem. This article has serious problems, through and through, and changing another "murder" to "death" or e to a won't make them go away (though I will fix that much, if you insist). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wound up fixing considerably more, but it's still pretty bad, and will no doubt become worse again. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are issues of neutrality with the article, and that's to be expected in such topics, but the purpose here I believe is to highlight the event. At this rate, by the time the article had been sufficiently improved and reached an acceptable level of neutrality, the whole thing will probably be old news. What we need is more experienced editors to contribute to the improvement efforts, and supervise the edits by less experienced users. Ideophagous (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support huge event plus people there need our help! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest support Very important events are taking place in Iran related to women, which are reflected in the world's important media every day. It would be an excellent work in Wikipedia to put Death of Mahsa Amini on the front page.Caravaneternity (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Time has shown that this has grown in scale and significance into worldwide news and of grave importance in Iran. I suspect sone of the earlier oppose votes may be different now. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The protests have a standalone article now, which would normally be more appropriate than a section, but it's also relatively shitty. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Amended nomination to include September 2022 Iranian protests. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Quality and significance are both well below par here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Because it's a major incident that's all over the news. It forms part of the ongoing problems concerning Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and while it's not an isolated incident, it is turning out to be a major one. Alex-h (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this is picking up steam, not dying down. Widely covered with an increasing death toll. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Admin comment. I don't see a consensus either way at present, but equally I don't think consensus is impossible. I'm going to leave it open but remove the "(Attention needed)" for now, it can be re-added if it looks like a consensus is emerging. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more supporting votes than opposing ones I believe (I counted 8 support to 6 oppose). Is there a level of support that should be reached before it's accepted? I don't know if the nominator can vote as well, but I obviously support, though I think the article still needs a lot of improvement, especially by adding a background section after the lead. Ideophagous (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that at the time of posting this looked like a national event, within time it has become major international news. This is why most of the opposes are at the beginning and supports at the end. Consensus should be time sensitive in this case. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support Death of Mahsa Amini has triggered massive protests, especially by women, in many Iranian cities. A major event that has been covered globally by the media. NMasiha (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Got here from article's talk page. As I mentioned in my reply to Ad Orientem, there's extensive and global media coverage over protests and Amini's death (which triggered the protests). Many personalities reacted to her death and events related to it, including the protests (for example, Sharon Stone and J.K. Rowlings and many more). The Guardian named these protests as "Mahsa Amini protests"; So these are obviously in connection. Sources that I have mentioned in my previous comment are from the past 24 hours and I think the situation has changed since the early oppose comments posted. Jeeputer  <sup style="font-weight:bold; color:#006B3C">Talk  21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Extensive coverage in many different sources about the protests. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Jeeputer. -Suratrat (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Extensive international coverage. Serious situation with many fatalities already reported. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:9D5E:161:B0E2:36BF (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Protests still growing with at least seven dead now.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to witnesses, rights groups and video posted on social media, at least (which is not to say they miscounted, merely that the videos posted online and the scale of the response from the authorities are difficult to independently verify). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is being actively maintained, and it seems like the scale is indeed appropriate for featuring. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - protests are ongoing and building - it has become a major political event for Iran. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This is being covered by NPR, BBC, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, The Guardian, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Why hasn't this been posted yet? Typical racist Americocentric Wikipedians. Some random black criminal gets shot by cops in America, ya'll are quick to post. Meanwhile mass protests in Iran due to a young woman's murder by the state get ignored. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:6050:9A43:B737:BB7F (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does this comment eerily remind me of a recently-banned frequent contributor to ITN? The Kip (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Relax. It has been posted.-- Ideophagous (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * can the death count among protestors be updated with new info? This source mentions that it's 31 casualties at this point.-- Ideophagous (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've said "more than 30" as we usually avoid getting too precise in these blurbs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Would it be possible to put Mahsa Amini's picture (available in Death of Mahsa Amini) in the news section? Or should I create a nomination for the main picture separately? Ideophagous (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That picture is used under fair use, and thus cannot be used on the Main Page. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 19:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thank you! -- Ideophagous (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles should be protected and brought up to main page quality. Protest article has prominent redlinks and death article has an indiscriminate list of reactions. 130.75.182.253 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support- Death of Mahsa Amini and women's rights in Iran were even mentioned in the United Nations General Assembly by different presidents such as America and Chile. This article is very important and is discussed by many experts in the world.H2KL (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Inflation

 * Oppose Economies go through booms and busts all the time, and this has no well-defined point where it would be considered over. Its similar to why "Climate Change" isn't ongoing - just too broad in scope. --M asem (t) 14:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Nor does it make sense for an article based on rising global inflation to talk mostly about the United States, but for some people Americancentrism is not a problem, but those who criticize it. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this will be indefinite. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose inflation happens, it is quite high at the moment due to the ongoing energy crisis and post covid supply chain issues but it's just a normal aspect of free market capitalism. Polyamorph (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, Polyamorph and others. Khuft (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - this could potentially have merit if multiple G7/8/20 countries or global stock markets post successive quarterly drops and officially declare a global recession. Until then, however, this is a goal with no posts in sight. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Floods in Pakistan

 * Oppose Lingering weather disasters are generally hard to justify for ongoing, particularly when there are weather problems all over the world. --M asem (t) 13:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I argue this crisis is of exceptional proportions, given that it continues to warrant a national state of emergency. Weather disasters are not isolated disasters; these floods are also a health disaster impacting millions due to its unprecedented severity. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also life-threatening flooding in China and India - it is of course their wet season there. While the initial flooding in Pakistan was unusual, it would be like having an ongoing for hurricane season in the Atlantic region. --M asem (t) 15:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would actually be open to that type of ongoing nomination. Currently, the 2022 typhoon season article is very actively being maintained, for example. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The floods are nearly over and slowly clearing up. Unless I am missing something. If you wanted this you should have mentioned it a few weeks ago at it's peak Haris920 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. nevertheless if it's still ongoing for even a few more days, I think that that shouldn't impact the nomination. If really ITN worthy, we should have nominated it way back then. But this is a shortcoming of Wikipedia I guess. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No shortcomings in this case. It nominated as blurb at the time, and posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only substantial update in the past week is with regard to malaria case numbers. Not meeting the consistent substantial updates criteria for Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 01:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Article looks good and is being actively updated every day, which is the most important requirement of ongoing for me. Human toll and significance is clear. That being said, I am worried that we're at the tail-end of the disaster. It will remain relevant for a long while, though, with all the death and displacement... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Silva

 * Support, Per nom., article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many citations needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Change to support now that the article has been sufficiently improved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Several sources added now to address cn tags. Also added more sources to filmography. Article almost fully sourced now. --06:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)SitcomyFan (talk)
 * Update Article now completely sourced and should be ready for posting.--SitcomyFan (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a delay with posting articles at the moment? This one has been ready for a couple of days, not much movement here. Worried due to timeframe.--SitcomyFan (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed your comment on Sunday. Re-reviewing, I see this as ready and have marked it so. (Don't worry about the time, this has several days to be posted before it would go stale.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be ok. Grimes2 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes

 * Support per nom. If Armenia/Azerbijan was posted, then why not this? EditMaker Me (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Important border clash. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Like with the Armenia/Azerbaijan escalation, I think these developments should have a separate article.Abcmaxx (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support if there’s a new article with details & sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – One more flareup in the long-running internecine war between Tajiks and Kygyz. Doesn't seem particularly significant. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparable to Armenia vs. Azerbaijan which establishes recent precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update & amended nomination I created 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes; firstly because of the consensus, but also there was really a large gap between the ceasefire and summer of 2021 and January 2022, so it merited its own article anyway.Abcmaxx (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Abcmaxx, you should get credit. - Indefensible (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This border conflict is so minor and routine that it doesn't even get an entry in the long List of ongoing armed conflicts. We should stick to the level of the six major wars which have caused thousands of casualties so far this year. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be added then, I will update that list. - Indefensible (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Expansion needed Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Of similar importance as the Azerbaijan-Armenia clash. Another consequence of Russia's rapidly waning influence over the post-Soviet space. Khuft (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per the addition of the Armenia/Azerbaijan Clashes to the In the News section. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;"> Physeters ✉ 00:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems we are heading toward support to post, however, the update regarding the current development is still rather short, most of the article is about earlier events. Some expansion and I'll support. --Tone 09:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – On Sunday, Reuters put toll at 71. – Sca (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The same article says 81 dead now. Seems to have been updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just updated the blurb to 81. --PFHLai (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support On the same level of Ar/Az from a few days ago. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death tolls, target article is updated and properly sourced <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> 💙 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Should we change "are killed" to "were killed" because they two countries have signed a peace deal?
 * 125.59.140.165 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Phantom of the Opera Closing

 * Oppose. Whatever the merits of posting this kind of thing ITN, the time to do so is when it actually ends. We do not cover press releases. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. While I support posting it, we should wait until Feb 18th when it closes. echidnaLives (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait just like the retirement announcement stories or television show cancellation announcements they can be reversed; however notable when no longer continued. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose now and later Just as it makes no sense to include sportspeople retirement, neither does this. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I saw the story but the show started in London and still running there, despite a pandemic hiatus. The Broadway run is therefore secondary. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's one of the 2 most important such records in the world. In the Americas it's the more important of the two. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it hasn't happened yet. Polyamorph (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

 * Support Rather than have a new blurb for the state funeral on the 19th, this covers the ongoing aspects, and likely can be expected to be "done" in the week or more. --M asem (t) 01:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support once her death rolls out of ITN. EditMaker Me (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to ongoing until Monday when the state funeral likely gets a blurb. --Tone 07:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the state funeral gets a blurb honestly. We've never blurbed the funerals of any other heads of state. I also think this should be pulled from ongoing, I don't see enough consensus. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I could spend the effort to come up with policy based reasons to oppose this, but frankly this shows that ITN's bias isn't pro-American; it's pro British. Rockphed (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support as previously discussed the death and state funeral would move to ongoing once it falls off ITN. It can be replaced by the funeral blurb on Monday. Polyamorph (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose -- Although I'd rather this than blurbing the funeral. Unless there is now a new precedent to blurb the funeral of every head of state, which is silly. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  17:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't appreciate the magnitude of the funeral? 500 heads of state and foreign dignitaries will attend. This will be enormous world-wide news. Polyamorph (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The funeral is a conclusion of a event that was clearly notable, much like the inauguration ceremonies for the US president. It is clearly an important event for those in the Commonwealth, but we already have reported on her death and this ongoing includes all the worldwide reactions to it. M asem (t) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The funeral is a much bigger event than an inauguration ceremony for the US president, which hundreds of heads of state and royalty from across the world do not attend. Ongoing obviously covers this but I support removing that and replacing it with the blurb on Monday. Polyamorph (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your argument, but I really don't think it makes sense to blurb what is in effect the same event twice. But I would much rather see this in ongoing for the mourning period rather than as a blurb, so I'll change my oppose to a weak oppose instead. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support. I would support either option. The evnt is enormous and is a number one story in UK for a week. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:IAR Support Normally I would oppose this. ITN has never as far as I can remember covered a funeral, and I will strenuously oppose this being treated as a precedent to that end. But this is easily the biggest one of the biggest news stories of the year, with the global coverage being off the hook. So yeah, sometimes you just gotta roll with it. But I reiterate that I regard this as a one off exception, not as a green light for funerals getting covered at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment edited to acknowledge the Russo-Ukrainian war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a big news story, but it’s nowhere near as big of a news story as the Russia-Ukraine War. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how ITN works. We don't exclude legitimate news items on a relative basis.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we blurb this, then we're effectively saying that we think the Queen of England was more important than the leaders of other heads of states. It does set a precedent. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably depends on how much coverage a world leader’s funeral gets. The last funeral I remember that got significant coverage was Mandela’s funeral. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She is more important than other heads of state though, based on the length of her reign and the number of countries she reigned over. Steelkamp (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Unlike other heads of state, she had no real authority. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have strong feelings about whether or not this should be ongoing. I’m just noting that the Russia-Ukraine War has been in the news & frequently at the top of the news for 6 months. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support As a sui generis case, not a rule, because the level of global news coverage is nearly unprecedented for the death and funeral of a head of state.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to comment - she was mentioned as the Queen of England earlier. She was not the Queen of England. The Queen of England has not existed for hundreds of years. Just think it’s worth pointing out as the erroneous title grossly understates things. Humbledaisy (talk)
 * For what it's worth, I'd reminded the same guy how she was the queen of several states and provinces shortly before he apparently forgot again, so I don't think it's going to work. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say anything, but to the average American, this distinction doesn't really matter. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. The average American also probably forgets why Manifest Destiny claims didn't work on Canada. Up here, we still appreciate the Royal Navy's help. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What the average American might believe is irrelevant, to be honest. It's wrong. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion in Ongoing until after the final private burial on Monday; but Oppose posting the funeral as a separate event, as it is a highly predictable sequel to the death, which we have already covered. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing, Oppose Reblurb InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose all the above, this should be pulled from ongoing. Somebody having a funeral after they die is the literal opposite of news. This is incredibly silly, and the IAR support but no this isnt a precedent are absurd. Even more so because this head of state, unlike say Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, had absolutely no authority over anything. This is just absurd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per Nableezy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy's argument is incredibly silly. This funeral procession didn't make Ongoing because of precedent, ignoring rules or perceptions of power. It's just a subject that's been world news for eleven days straight and whose article is scheduled to stop receiving substantial updates in a few more hours (which is all Abdullah's took); you can wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Some old lady dies, and, shocker of the year, is buried, and the entire main page is a tribute in her honor? And Im the one being silly? World news for eleven straight days? There has been 0 news about this since she died. What happened to the people saying we only blurb a death when it is something unusual, when its old person dies peacefully in their sleep it isnt worthy? Oh that only applies to non-British people. This fetishization over a family that is of 0 consequence in the world and that a tiny percentage of people give half a shit about is what is silly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I do think the Featured Article, Featured Picture, and dedicated DYK box is extreme. I have a hard time being too upset about a small link in the ITN box for an extra day, tho. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Oppose per Nableezy. It is mostly in the Anglo-Saxon world this is still considered news. Yakikaki (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting... neutral? – After today, this is no longer relevant news, and today this is featured in every section of the front-page. How long is this 'ongoing' item planned to stay on the page? That all being said, the article is very impressive and well put-together, so I can't be too spiteful towards it. It's a good article to feature, but I hope we're not going to be featuring this for the whole week. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The on-going item should be removed tomorrow, after the funeral today. Polyamorph (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My reaction too. Wikipedia has a Commonwealth bias, and it's kind of annoying. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I no longer support a blurb. The on-going item should be removed tomorrow. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still of the opinion that a blurb is not needed. I also agree that, unless something unexpected happens, the ongoing can be removed tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur. This was part of the virtue of ongoing vs. reblurb, in that a reblurb would be dated for today and thus linger for a week.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note someone has opened a duplicate discussion for blurbing above. Polyamorph (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Close I suggest this discussion (ongoing add) should be closed. Discussion of blurb or ongoing removal does not belong here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does if it should never have been posted to begin with. There were three comments when this was added, how is that consensus for ongoing? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair; but that ship has sailed. You are not going to get it pulled as a bad post before it gets pulled due to the ending of events. Intent of many was to pull Tuesday, which is 2 hours away in the UK.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Request removal and close -- It is now Tuesday in the United Kingdom. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still Monday in Kingston, Regina and Victoria. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allen Aylett

 * More than long enough to qualify (700+ words of prose). Formatting seems fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY fo RD. --PFHLai (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shelby Jordan

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Izium mass graves

 * Comment – Quite widely covered. UN to investigate, says AlJazeera. Not another incremental report on the fighting. – Sca (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added this to article, thank you! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle We posted the Bucha massacre as well. This isn't your average war progress update, but the article needs expansion. The Kip (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered in ongoing. Really shouldn't be arbitrary about this. If we apply "covered in ongoing" logic to the many developments in the war, we should apply it here too. Banedon (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the article is expanded. This isnt a typical war development. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca, if the article is expanded adequately. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Not quite Katyn massacre, but this might just be the tip of the iceberg.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support Wait ... pending careful development of article. Favor Alt2, offered above. (Note that a police spokesman said some apparently killed by artillery fire or bombing.) – Sca (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a claim this is a Russian war crime, but that's not yet proven out in international court, so all that we can say is that mass graves were found. This is covered by ongoing to that point. --M asem (t) 19:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said careful development, and restricted Alt2 to saying bodies were found. -- Sca (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt2's mention about the reconquest from Russian forces implies they (Russians) put the bodies there. I mean, there's Occam's razer that Russia was very likely behind it, but we should not be trying to point fingers even if the media is rushing to make the claim. M asem (t) 19:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe they all committed suicide – after being tortured . – Sca (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support' significant event, unfortunately Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable event. <b style="color:#191970;">Nythar</b> T . C 20:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this is a major revelation in the war similar in scope to the notable Mỹ Lai massacre, not a run-of-the-mill territorial update. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Sca. Similar scale to the Bucha massacre, which was featured in the main page, and good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - there is a move nomination for the article which is likely to be approved which changes the subject from "mass graves" to "massacre" so the blurb should reflect accordingly. - Indefensible (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It did initially, and that's what I called the article when I created it, but someone unilaterally moved it so I amended the nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - seconding this. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing. Posting the Bucha massacre was a mistake as well. YD407OTZ (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support either original or Alt 1. These are Russian warcrimes, it's plainly obvious to all. We can call a spade a spade here. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Between Bucha and Izium, Tadamon was discovered. I don't really know what makes Ukrainians more special than Syrians. EditMaker Me (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support the discovery of the Tadamon massacre nomination too.Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit too late for that as several months have passed since its discovery. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives, I'm seeing that this article wasn't nominated. Nothing forbids a similar item from being proposed to the main page, just like similar events in the future. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait – Scanty coverage on day two. Further detail seems advisable given the complexity of the situation. – Sca (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems pretty certain what happened here now thanks to continued reporting. I think AB II best describes the situation. IMO the "evidencing Russian war crimes" component should be implied by this blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thin at 315 words, of which about 250 are narrative text. Further info/development needed. -- Sca (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is why we have the war at ongoing. That Russia is committing war crimes is already common knowledge. This is not news so much as the latest chapter in a long running event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks the significance to warrant a a blurb when the general topic is already an item in "Ongoing".—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the presence of the war itself in Ongoing ought not to deter us from posting this distinct, serious, and clearly relevant story in its own right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This isn't covered by ongoing, as the massacre isn't mentioned in the article linked in ongoing. In addition, ongoing doesn't prevent us from posting stories that are related to the ongoing event but independently significant, which includes this massacre and other war crimes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, the discovery of a war crime on this scale can be considered an event on its own, apart from the events on the battlefield. Yakikaki (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 – Even just on significance alone, this is a horrifying discovery. I do hope to see the article expanded more as details surface and reactions develop, but the article is up to par. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Bagumba.  Spencer T• C 10:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support any of the blurbs. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb II but change "reconquest" to "recapture" or "retaken". Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – No real new info for several days; we should continue to wait for such. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is an ongoing investigation about what has happened exactly, and ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether to call this a 'massacre' or not (I and several others oppose such a title because it violates several core Wikipedia policies on accuracy, neutrality, no original research etc.). Although no doubt very important and tragic, a sensitive subject like this should not be rushed to the front page, but carefully investigated and discussed. I say this as a historian: we really need to be careful about how we talk about events like this, especially before we know all the facts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Marked as ready, we appear to have a consensus to post. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As noted by others above, this is covered by the 'Ongoing' section, which should be enough reasoning, but Nederlandse Leeuw's point is important as well. Jusdafax (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not a new development or expansion of the Russia/Ukraine war. This is the same stuff we have already seen Russia (allegedly) do and which we already posted about.  At this point the only things we should consider blurbing are if/when Ukraine retakes areas held before February (1 each for Crimea and the Donbas), if Ukraine crosses the frontier into Russia, if Russia by some miracle takes Kiev, if Russia drops a nuke, or if somebody new sends combat units to the front.  I suppose an armistice of some sort should also get blurbed. 208.127.227.224 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC) — 208.127.227.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose The Russian invasion is linked in Ongoing. I don't think this is independently significant enough to warrant a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gopanarayan Das

 * Long enough at 500+ words. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots (All non-English sources AGF'd). Earwig had no complaints at all. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Browsing this relatively briefly, this seems all good for RD :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - the provided source does not provide a date of death. Wikipedia says 14th, but the source was published on 15th and mentions Thursday (which was the 15th). Anarchyte  ( talk ) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was admitted to the hospital on the 14th, and died "the following morning". I added the sources for that part into the article, I seemed to have missed it. Curbon7 (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be fixed now. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liam Holden

 * Comment: Almost ready, just needs some restructuring so all information in the introduction appears in the body of the article.  Spencer T• C 10:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks of good quality and seems ready for RD. Fascinating subject.. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 16:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Maanu Paul

 * This wikibio currently only has 314 words of prose. This is a bit stubby. Any more to write about? Maybe when and how he joined and later became Co-Chair of the New Zealand Māori Council and when he left? Maybe his involvements as a negotiator in the Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements? Perhaps other things he did as Co-Chair of the Māori Council? Please be reminded to also refresh the references. Right now, the first two links in the list of references are deadlinks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jörg Faerber

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. Also my bad for nominating this again, not sure what happened but I may have been looking at an old version of the page. - Indefensible (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. No harm done. :-) --PFHLai (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be in good shape.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Stearns

 * Support Good depth, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 04:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fritz Pleitgen
Thank you for updating! Can you give him a bit of a lead, please. WDR - East Berlin - WDR, quite a story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie Butler (rugby union)

 * Support – Although Butler captained the Wales rugby union team, he's primarily known as a broadcaster, so the article is fine, in my opinion. Seth Whales   talk  05:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Asad Rauf

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Roger Federer retirement

 * Was unsure of who to name as updaters, feel free to suggest. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'm less opposed to sports retirements than most editors, but after the Brady incident we should probably hold off on posting any. The Kip (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was against retirement blurbs for Tom Brady and Serena Williams, and am against them still today, even for legitimate GOAT contenders. When Federer (or Nadal or Djokovic) passes away, in many decades time, I shall probably support a blurb then, if I'm still around on the planet myself! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Much like The Kip above, I'm concerned that these sorts of retirements don't end up lasting forever, and I doubt we want to run a blurb announcing their return to the sport. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per growing consensus that the sporting retirements we did post were a mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Serena Williams' retirement was a SNOW close less than two weeks ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Oh, I so badly want to support this one! This guy is damn near top of his field in an internationally-played sport. Unfortunately, as stated above, sports retirements are very easily reversible.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose he was hardly playing lately. Had he retired after winning a notable tournament, why not, but like this I oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose has hardly been playing the past few years, and sports retirements in general seem to be too prone to changes to post. AryKun (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Think we've all quietly agreed sports retirements, whomever the GOAT, aren't worth posting. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait he announced that the retirement will take place next week. Wait until the retirement actually occurs before nominating/posting. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naresh Kumar (tennis)

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose). Formatting seems fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has little to complain about. This wikibio is READY fo RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Booth (coach)

 * Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose). Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Formatting seems okay as things are right now, but I think it would be better if the list of references shows the actual title of each newspaper articles, instead of showing the date twice. Earwig has no concerns. This wikibio is READY fo RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD  Spencer T• C 03:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robert P. Maginnis

 * Comment: Any additional details/depth about his work in any of these roles that can be added to the article? As of now, article is basically a CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rommy Hunt Revson

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Gamble (baseball)

 * Weak support Sourcing is not great, most citations to B-Ref rather than newspapers, but SABR bios are thorough and this is good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to re-review, please, Muboshgu? Cbl62 has added more. --PFHLai (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would a re-review be necessary? A "weak support" is still a vote in support, not an oppose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am hoping for another pair of eyes on the new additions. --PFHLai (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Earl J. Silbert

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Harry Landis

 * Oppose on quality, needs ref improvement per banner. - Indefensible (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support actor from a number of well-known roles across a many decades Denham331 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , as per the template, Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Filmography is still unsourced. Prose could use more footnotes, too. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No change. --PFHLai (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irene Papas

 * Support article seems good to go. _-_Alsor (talk)
 * Posting, excellent article. --Tone 09:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember discussion on Vangelis, I think, here where it was said that she fits the threshold for blurb more. Now that id posted, propose blurb. Golden Lion Award, Berlin International Film Festival win, starred in Zorba the Greek film.  Kirill C1 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All I said was she's near his fame level. A bigger star than the president, PM or sex tape drummer. Quite good actress. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Old Woman Dies, end of story. If she's a true household name, it'll draw its own attention in RD. No objection to a photo, if that's the main goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Kazakhstan re-names capital city to Astana

 * I would support posting but the update is one-sentence. Changing the name of the capital is a rare event, and yes, there is a political backstory. --Tone 09:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, oppose on quality; the update needs to be more significant first. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Country capital information has been all encyclopedias' hottest selling point for generations and I think the entire article now repeating "Astana" instead of "Nur-sultan" is enough of an update to hammer the idea home, geographically. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is not a unique event in the history of this city; this is the sixth time a name change has happened here, all in just the last sixty years. Gotitbro (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Countries don't exactly change their national capitals' names all that often. Article needs some work however. The Kip (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ineresting trivia, but 1) there's no actual geopolitical importance, 2) this is the fourth time they've changed the name just since Kazakhstan became independent, and 3) the article update is completely insufficient for a main page posting. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose just trivia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support upon Quality Improvement it's interesting and encyclopedic, but currently the article includes no rationale why the name was changed again besides the trivial statement that some members of parliament requested it. If there were to be more (sourced) informations e.g. relating to how the current president of Kazhakstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev is striving to erase the symbols of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, then I'd be more enclined to support. In any case, this could alternatively also feature on DYK? Khuft (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on the one hand, this city was last renamed in 2019, and that wasn't that long ago. On the other hand, this is encyclopedic information that is important and relevant for our readers.  I think the second point trumps the first, so I support. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is back at Nur-Sultan now... Khuft (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's back now to Astana with a WP:MOVP protection. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We didn't post the name change in 2019 and, as it hasn't stuck, it's easiest to pass over their transitory mistake. Name changes are a headache for Wikipedia and so we shouldn't encourage them. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you really think people are worried about moving articles around on Wikipedia when they're considering a major geopolitical change? 174.113.161.1 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I'm unimpressed by our coverage of this temporary namechange. I do agree that the initial namechange in 2019 was probably the more significant event; this seems to merely be a return to 'normalcy.' The three-year namechange is an interesting subject, and if it had a high-quality article on its own I might've supported a blurb. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, Andrew. Devoid of impactfulness. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, not ready on quality. I supported posting when Astana was renamed to Nur-Sultan in 2019, and I find it interesting that the complicated political situation in Kazakhstan where Nursultan Nazarbayev has waning yet lasting importance resulted in the capital dropping his name after just 3 short years. The arguments against posting 3 years ago pointing to how frequently the city's name changed were very unconvincing, as most of the name changes were from when the city was being renamed by the Russians and Soviets from the 1800s to the 1950s, not by the independent Kazakhstan. However, I agree with other editors who've stated that there should be more prose explaining why the city's name was changed before posting. <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> 💙 17:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How about going back to Akmolinsk just to keep things interesting? – Sca (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the sound of Akmola more, personally. I'd go back to it if I could, but unfortunately I am not the president of Kazakhstan. <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> 💙 19:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia really; not seeing significance here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pawnkingthree. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Callaghan

 * Support article is fine and referenced, however would be great if there was an expansion on his non-league football managerial career and the years were added of his time at Enfield both as player and manager. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Susan L. Solomon

 * Support Referenced, depth appropriate. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 04:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Starr

 * Support RD - probably not blurb worthy though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, certainly no blurb here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced, thorough, better than most wikibios we post. Old man dies who had some household name recognition decades ago, yeah, sounds like the reference case for RD for me, really can't imagine supporting a blurb for an individual in that case. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed again) Blue Origin NS-23 mission failure

 *  Comment Oppose – A non-event. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Article almost exclusively is about the failure of the mission and only briefly mentions mission objectives. I think if we are going to post this, ITN/R or not, there must be more information in the article about the potential impacts. All we have currently is that the booster was destroyed and the mission presumably delayed. What are the the impacts of this failure that have this rise to a ITN level of concern? I do believe most readers would question the exact significance of the failure of a non-crewed sub-orbital flight such as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added some additional information, but significance is presumed through ITNR. It is also the first time that a New Shepard rocket has had complete mission failure. BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Perhaps if it was manned or the first mission, but neither, so unimportant. The Kip (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR -- Sca (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances; The Kip's position appears to reject the majority of stories that would be posting under this part of ITNR, which means the circumstances aren't exceptional and IAR doesn't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for affirming your faithful adherence to the sacred ITN Catechism. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this is a rare instance in which the encyclopedia is not best served by inclusion of this story.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Previously, you said I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Has your opinion changed? BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm never too old to learn, and in this case, I got a clue and determined that my previous opinion was wrong. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one thing to keep in mind here, is that it was a sub-orbital rocket, not designed or planned to orbit the earth. Looking at other launch failures that were featured; Soyuz MS-10 in 2018 had a crew on board, that survived ballistic re-entry, and were recovered over 400 km from the pad. The Falcon 9 carrying AMOS-6 (satellite) in 2016 blew up on the pad in a massive explosion, all but destroying LC-40 and was felt over 60 km away! In this case we have only a sub-orbital rocket, no large explosion, and the capsule landed safe and intact. The booster didn't land successfully - but the article doesn't really say much as to it's fate, other than it hit the ground; elsewhere I've seen reports that it was providing telemetry until it's unsuccessful landing. So no humans, not orbital, payload survived, no damage to the launch pad, and no information about the booster landing zone. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- it's ITNR. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is, so it needs to be posted, otherwise the point of ITNR is moot. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ITNC entries that are based on ITNR can still be debated if that specific entry is important enough to post, just we don't want people rehashing the "is the ITNR appropriate?" here on ITNC. M asem (t) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. The phrase "each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" seems to preclude any discussion about whether the event is important enough to post. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Not every second time, not every other time, just every time. All anyone who doesn't like it but wants to follow the rules can hope to accomplish is to convince the room the article isn't "appropriately" updated (whatever that means). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have, in the past, skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons that were beyond quality issues. The point that we have this allowance to skip a singular ITNR instance, as long as we aren't wasting the effort about the base ITNR criteria. Major crashes of spacecraft can be significant, but you can see by the way the news is covering this that this crash of an unmanned commercial rocket wasn't really a major event. M asem (t) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither are plenty of R things. They don't need to be, they just need to recur and constitute an appropriate update to a nominated article without orangetags. If you can think of a good reason unrelated to importance to skip this one, I'd love to get on board, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is true that we have skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons unrelated to quality or whether it actually satisfies ITNR criteria, then there's something wrong, and we should change our policies. If ITNR criteria can simply be discarded because we don't like it or think it's appropriate, then we might as well just get rid of ITNR entirely. This being said, I'd support updating ITNR criteria for launches to require that the failure occur with a manned launch. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. Right at the top it says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the wording needs to be changed, as that is not what it currently says. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R and marked ready. Update is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the ready tag, it may be technically ready to post but there isn't even a remote degree of consensus to do so. There's a grand total of six votes overall, and it's 50/50 between oppose and support. The Kip (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 57/43. You can assume the nominator supports. In addition, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposes which disregard the WP:ITNR guidelines are invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding it back. There's no need to form consensus for notability, since it's ITN/R. I've yet to see anyone oppose on the basis that the article is not in an acceptable state. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can this really be described as "complete mission failure" if most of the payload was recoverable? - Indefensible (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and also notability. Quality-wise, per DarkSide830, it lacks information on the mission beyond the details of its failure. Also oppose on notability per those above. ITN/R is not a suicide pact, and there is no part of the project where IAR doesn't apply (it's even one of the five pillars). Per above, this is one of those rare cases where something that's ITN/R nonetheless fails to reach the significance bar. It's a relatively insignificant story that won't materially affect that company's programme or anything else in the longterm, and our readers wouldn't particularly be well served by its inclusion at ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I also think that ITNR is not a must. This was a failure of a rather routine mission that did not carry crew (luckily) or some particularly important equipment, like JW telescope (also luckily). We should probably amend ITNR criteria. I suggest this is sent to DYK instead, the article is decent enough. --Tone 08:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this falls under WP:ITNR; launch failures are listed under the "space exploration" heading but this was a suborbital launch, and thus it's dubious to what degree this counts as "space exploration". Including this only begs the question of where the line is drawn. Would a failed weather balloon launch count? I agree with the sentiment that this item would be better suited to DYK. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll buy that, this was space trucking, Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the launch hadn't failed it terminates above Kármán line, which means that it is space exploration; weather balloons don't go anywhere near that high. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Altitude aside, cargo can't explore, especially when only going somewhere its shipping company has gone 22 times before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The cargo was experiments, intended to be run in space. Such experiments are part of space exploration. In addition, look at our article on space exploration. Reaching the Kármán line is considered part of it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Such experiments are part of space research, no doubt, which I guess might pass for exploration in an inner intellectual sense. And maybe that T-2 Mission Arroway could have felt some base rush of actual firsthand pioneering. Tough to say, my furred friend, but I'm not flipping twice on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the original discussion which led to the space rules in their present form is here, from 2011. This was a reduction in scope from a much broader "any space flight" that was there before, but it actually looks like the version that was written as a result of that discussion is not quite the one that had consensus in the discussion. The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures, including those that weren't orbital, but that's what was inserted. I'd suggest revisiting this ASAP to be honest. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The WP:ITN/R entry is "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". This is poorly drafted as all nominations obviously require such sufficient details.  And so the only meaningful bit is "launch failures".  But these are commonplace – the repeated launch failures of Artemis 1 are a fresh example.  We therefore have to discuss whether a particular failure is significant or not and so this shouldn't be ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same response as to sca above; if we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. It says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".  The only way we can use our common sense and establish whether this is an exception is to discuss the details of the case.  That's what we're doing here. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it is very unambiguous. If it is not a rigid rule, then it shouldn't say Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page and Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But that applies to any guideline (or indeed policy) anywhere on the project. Most such "rules" are worded in clear language that would appear at first sight to discount exceptions, yet IAR applies if appropriate nonetheless. And the idea that IAR would be a principle applied right across the project, covering almost all of our content and conduct conventions, but somehow not apply in one single hallowed corner of the Wiki known as ITN/R, seems a bit ludicrous when you think about it. For most purposes ITN/R is a "rigid rule", but occasional exceptions apply. The bottom line is that if enough editors feel that there are special reasons why a particular item should be IARed, as appears to be the case here, then a consensus doesn't form and it doesn't get posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most other guidelines aren't written with the same strength of language. In addition, IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances. Given that the reasons for rejecting this launch failure would apply to most launch failures, IAR can't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTLAW explains that "...it is not governed by statute ... the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." So, what we have here is an evolving consensus and WP:ITN/R seems to require further adjustment to reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets see how this closes, but if it does close against posting then you are right; ITNR (and In the news, and the template above) would need adjustment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines are important. Any change must be made conservatively and slowly while seeking the input of others. A driveby discussion on a matter such as this is not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines are important. Any change must be made conservatively and slowly while seeking the input of others. A driveby discussion on a matter such as this is not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It's ITN/R... It has been said before. If you don't like it being on ITN/R, then start a discussion on the talkpage to remove or amend the topic. Notability is assumed for anything on the ITN/R list and thus it's notability is not a question here. The only issue we can debate on an ITN/R topic is quality, which the article meets since it has been updated. I will note that the ITN/R guideline has a broader level of consensus then any discussion here so we can't just override it. Drive by discussions are not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline itself. Therefore, this must be posted whether we like it or not.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussions at ITN/R seem to get less attention than discussions here and it's usually a subset of the same editors. For example, we've been here before with Proton M.  That nomination failed to launch so there was then a discussion at ITN/R.  That fizzled too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I remind you of WP:NOTBURO. Also: Do you yourself believe that this story would be significant for posting on ITN, regardless of whether or not it's a recurring item? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on significance, noting s point about this not being an orbital launch. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – A day later, 3:1 consensus appears to have formed against posting. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposes which disregard the guidelines are invalid --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment in addition to being WP:ITNR there is a "please do not" above which reads "oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.". Not posting this at this point is anarchy. Either the guidelines exist or they do not. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is trending away from posting unmanned launch failures on WT:ITN. Even if this item were "ready" as you keep insisting that it is, it would be pulled almost immediately after posting. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think you could argue whether or not this qualifies as ITNR; if it is, then ITNR rules (again) need to be redone in regards to spaceflight. Either way, this is a non-event in which an unmanned ship wasn't destroyed and didn't hurt anyone. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready this item is ready and currently an ITN/R item. The opposes above are invalid as a result. There is discussion about the inclusion of this category at WT:ITN but as it stands, at the time of nomination, the item was listed. It simply needs to be posted, and it can push out the nothingburger weeks old earthquake story. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Consensus against, for obvious reasons. -- Sca (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if what you say about ignoring the opposition is true (which it isn't, because there's a significant consensus to IAR here), the article still doesn't satisfy the quality criterion, per the issues raised by DarkSide830 and myself regarding completeness. There is almost no discussion on the purpose and objectives of the mission. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it really meet ITN User:Kicking222? I don't think most anticipated that rule to be used for non-orbital launches, or used when the capsule landed safely. What's next - sounding rockets? Also, there seems to be a growing consensus at WT:ITN/R to remove it. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose we should follow the spirit of the guideline and not blindly obey the letter of it. As it's worded at the moment some kid's science project rocket could make ITN if it didn't work properly. I'd say it's fairly clear the guideline is meant to apply to satellite launches and exploration missions, applying it to an uncrewed suborbital launch is clearly not what was intended. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:C9F4:ECC4:7875:7876 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet another reason why ITN/R needs to die. It can only be used to suppress consensus, as is being attempted here.   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally believe ITN/R needs to stick around, as certain bad-faith editors have fought tooth and nail to prevent some common-sense news items from being posted; that said, considering this would normally fall under it, perhaps it does need to be pruned a bit. The Kip (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It being significant enough for ITNR brings me in, but IAR is a thing and this should involve some common sense. ITNR shouldn’t always be automatically on, and I agree ITNR discussions tend to fizzle out. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Four admins have weighed in with oppose !votes for this ITNR candidate. At least two of them can be said to be 'posting admins' in that they have assessed consensus for at least one item on ITN/C;, in particular, is a regular participant in this space. At any time they could have chosen to close the discussion and posted this item. If this is a candidate that we "post whether we like it or not", then why are our entrusted admins not posting it whether we like it or not? The answer lies in our five pillars, and it's the reason we entrust them to make decisions.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- this is ITNR, so it should be posted, and I have no idea why it hasn't yet, beyond simple I don't like it. This being said, the criteria should change so that only failures of beyond sub-orbital or crewed missions should be posted. That'd solve this problem. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a bunch of discussions on the talk page about this and ITN/R right now, it would not be right to post this because of ITN/R and then change ITN/R so that this nom would no longer qualify under ITN/R. Better to wait rather than rush and immediately have a posting that is no longer supported by an outdated guideline. - Indefensible (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Remind me of this ITN/R ambivalence for the next singing contest or soccer tournament nomination plz. But also, this doesnt merit being posted as ITN. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with taking a look at some of these awards ceremonies for axing next. Seems less and less people care about them anymore and they certainly aren't as impactful as natural disasters, elections, or the deaths of globally important individuals. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – The article looks solid, so we have nothing to lose in featuring this. I agree with the sentiment that the ITN/R item is poorly constructed and I would like to see it amended. This launch being a sub-orbital flight with on-board science cargo makes it more comparable to an unmanned zero-gravity flight. But hey, we got a proper crash here and it's of wider interest, so I don't mind seeing it featured. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready this ITN/R item is ready to be posted. The notability opposes are invalid. Removal of the ready tag is vandalism. Post it already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Several ITN active admins disagree with you. Please stop. WP:IAR. 47.16.96.33 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-closure edit: Striking comment of a now blocked sock. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should try Understanding IAR instead of just bandying it about to get your way. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At the related discussion to either remove this from ITNR completely, or to reword the ITNR rule to exclude failures like this, there are at the moment 14 people wanting to change ITNR so this no longer would be included, vs. 1 person wanting to keep this in ITNR: and that one person happens to be you. It looks to me as if there is much more reason to see your repeated "ready" claims as WP:POINT disruption, than there is to claim that the removal of the "ready" is actual vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on, we don't want to escalate this to ANI. But this is the direction we're going if you can't let it go. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready item was listed as ITN/R when nominated, and is sufficiently updated. Opposes which disregard WP:ITNR are invalid, as such removing the ready tag and premature closing are vandalism. It needs to be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is literally the fourth time you've marked it ready in spite of consensus being otherwise and an ongoing discussion on ITNR trending toward removing unmanned launches. Let it go, if anything it's you committing the vandalism. The Kip (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm literally just following the actual guidelines as written. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Re-posted as blurb) Blurb/RD: Jean-Luc Godard

 * Comment The issues mentioned in the nom exist and need to be fixed, though the filmography page's condition should not hold this back it should be brought upto par as well. Support when the issues are resolved and also support blurb here, with the extraordinary influence in cinema that Godard has had. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Tried to fix the most glaring issues and main tags. Also support due to the nature of the death which was not apparent when it was first reported. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered by Eng. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb/photo RD - passes Mandela/Thatcher test, post as blurb/photo RD if article quality is sufficient for posting. 130.75.182.245 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not even remotely close to the "Mandela/Thatcher test". I hadn't even heard of this guy prior to seeing this nomination. Which obviously doesn't prove anything in itself, but it does strongly suggest to me that he's not a Thatcher or Mandela. Surprising as it may seem, I'd heard of those guys by the time of their deaths. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was as transformative in his field as Mandela or Thatcher, probably more so. We've posted far more insignificant film celebrities before (e.g. Connery, Fisher). He was acclaimed as one of the most influential filmmakers ever by several academic and popular sources. There was no such commentary for the other names I mentioned (in their sub-field of acting). If your "standards" are based solely on your personal opinion, I'd say that's no standard at all. 130.75.182.245 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is of decent enough quality, death does not require additional explanation that a blurb would provide, so RD is sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that a blurb would provide the extra information that it was an assisted suicide.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be open to seeing this blurbed if everything in the article was properly cited. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - incredibly important filmmaker, and bottom two blurbs on homepage are over a week old, so no issue pushing one of them out. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  14:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article needs ref work in three big sections of the article. Once the issues have been addressed, I'd support a blurb. Article now in good shape. Definitely influential enough for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most important filmmakers of all time. The Kip (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb on quality fixes I would recommend fleshing out the legacy section which should be easy with the long form obits coming in. M asem (t) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Definitely not in the same class as Tarkovsky but still a significant and highly influential filmmaker. I’d like to see more death blurbs for film directors.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb no where near the impact of Gorbachev or the recognition of Elizabeth II no media circus absolutely no reason at all to bump a blurb out of the box for this. 100% what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a widely covered and reported death, media circus and bumping other blurbs should not be a criterion. Besides the unnatural reason for the death making the act itself further notable. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bumping blurbs out of the box and looking like an obit was the whole reason RD was created so it is in fact a most critical criteria --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot control when two rather significant and influential people die, just as we can't control when disasters happen back to back. That's the nature of news. M asem (t) 01:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. A hugely influential director, certainly one of the most important in post-war Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once issues are addressed. This is somebody highly influential and who was absolutely at the top of their field. You could even argue the death itself is notable as Godard may be the most high-profile person yet to die by assisted suicide. I would suggest "dies by assisted suicide" as the wording rather than "commits", though, as that wording is contentious. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both wordings are contentious. That's the whole reason people continually pit one against the other, instead of going with a third option. To me, he "kills himself". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "dies by" is a better option here to avoid any contention. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If "dies by" is supposed to avoid contention, why would Googling "died by suicide" bring up far more stories about the contest itself than stories about particular suicides? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I supported that option as quite a few dicts do not recommend the usage (e.g., ), MOS:SUICIDE also provides for the alternative usage. Personally I am not opposed to either. Gotitbro (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pardon the expression, but I got it, bro. There are two sides to this either/or issue. Anyone on either has valid reasons to me, but don't tell me it's not worth fighting for! From the outside, everyone knows that much is "true enough", eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo RD There's almost no story here, it's an honour. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, oppose blurb--definitely not meeting the blurb threshold in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Think it's good to go now. Fixed the glaring referencing issues (also a more recent image would be preferable but the latest on Commons is a grainy one from more than a decade ago, if someone can provide one that would be great). There should be more detail on the assisted suicide itself but don't think much has been reported on the fact as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Between you and me, it's a drug overdose, a lethal injection of a sodium pentobarbitol solution, but good luck finding an entertainment journalist with "the right words" for that, especially if they're writing for an audience which associates public death administration, killer drugs and even the term "Suicide Solution" with a depraved sort of criminality unbefitting this beloved artist-turned-legend. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that assisted suicide is legal (to a degree) in Switzerland, we should not be trying to make that a political point in the blurb. He died regardless of the means, there's no need to go into the why. (Outside of assassinations or unnatural causes, we never otherwise put the blurb in about the means of death, and that helps us to stay neutral on issues like this). M asem (t) 02:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about politics, it's about mixing medical terms with lay terms. "Drug overdose" reads like an accident to Joe, Jane or Jimmy Average, and "lethal injection" suggests a homicide (ergo, to some, murder most foul). This was not a natural death at all, this was a suicide, caused by drugs and to which many issues plausibly significantly contributed. It sounds worse than it is. So yeah, the less we share or care to know, the better, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb provided any quality issues are addressed - One of the most significant film makers of all time. Obvious major story. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, Notable person and article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - not even remotely of the calibre at which we blurb an RD. Come on, the standards haven't changed this much. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - We don't blurb really good filmmakers.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD I'm not sure there's sufficient support to blurb nor sufficient opposition to close the nomination, but the article is in fine shape, so RD is certainly acceptable. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - he was the most influential film maker alive. 2A02:908:675:8D00:F4B8:EC9B:6EA2:29A9 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is fine, and this news is clearly significant. Godard is obviously notable and has had massive and far-reaching influence on the medium of film. He is not simply a "really good filmmaker", if that were all he was he wouldn't have an article or sources covering his death in the first place. <small style="font-size:40%;">ostensibly singular userpage <small style="font-size:60%;">(inquire within) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-posted as blurb. There's a fairly reasonable consensus (12-4 at the closest, probably more) to do so, therefore I have posted it as a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Godard is a major and transformative person in his field. Qualifies for blub under the "major figures" section in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It doesn't get more canonized in cinema than Godard. He basically reinvented the entire art form in the 1960s. To those who think he's not up to blurb standards, which directors WOULD you support? (I remember Spielberg/Scorsese were thrown out as examples in an old-ish discussion.) Nohomersryan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically none, by giving him a blurb we are putting him on the same level as Queen Elizabeth II. What makes Godard more worthy of a blurb than Ken Starr? - Indefensible (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you, but I can respect the consistency. As for Starr, I highly doubt anyone outside of the US really cares who he is. And he's a generally ephemeral figure here anyway. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, WP:VITAL already puts Lizzy and Jean-Luc on the same level, since they're both Level 4 people. (Disclaimer: this is not me saying that vital article lists should be used to determine who should be blurbed.) ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, still probably not right in my opinion but I guess that's something. - Indefensible (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn’t put Godard on the same level as someone like Gorbachev, I’d put him on the same level as someone like Queen Elizabeth II, who was a figurehead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I saw a full length piece on him on PBS Newshour, al-Jazeera, DW and other 1-hour TV news programs outside of France and all of them explained his new philosophies/methods in detail Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality seeing some quite widespread sourcing problems. My eye was drawn to the uncited "The Little Soldier and Les Carabiniers" section.  Checking the sources for the following two sections showed much of the information wasn't there (the source primarily provides box office stats).  I've tagged sentences that aren't sourced so far, but won't have time to check the whole article - Dumelow (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Rhino131 and others. Jusdafax (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pulled - given the concerns raised by and the now large number of citation-needed tags in the article, it clearly wasn't ready yet. Once these are fixed, the blurb can be re-posted (much as I objected to it above...)  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the quality is good enough I wouldn’t put Godard on the same level as someone like Gorbachev, but I’d put him on the same level as someone like Queen Elizabeth II, who was a figurehead. The articles I’ve read make it clear that he was a transformative director. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once quality is fixed I'll see if there's any citations I can help with if any remains when I have time tomorrow afternoon. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As a remark on current quality status, since I am not sure where that was when it was pulled: there are 4 failed verification tags, 4 citation needed tags, 1 page needed tag. Plus filmography. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, there were 4 outstanding citation needed tags at both the time of RD and blurb posting. —Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * & Regardless of the circumstances of when this blurb was pulled, I have cited the areas where citations were needed and replaced sources in areas where 'failed verification' appeared. I cannot see anymore reasons for this blurb not to be posted soon. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsourced filmography This was mentioned in the nominatation itself and as recently as 15 Sept by TenTonParasol. I've tagged the section.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , & : Looks like the article looks good now. Great work to all the editors who brought this article up to good shape.  TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Reposted as blurb. Kudos to the efforts of editors with this over the past two days, it looks to me like everything's resolved so I've reposted. Notifying too, who first raised issues, hopefully this is satisfactory for you.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not got any more time now but I've tagged a couple more paragraphs. The article suffered from whole chunks of opinion sourced to "boxofficemojo" which was little more than a earnings list.  Seems some good work has been done on the other tagged sections so hopefully this can be resolved quickly.  If someone has time it's worth casting an eye over looking for similar paragraphs.  There's a lot of paragraphs cited entirely to Brody (2008) that I can't do much more than take on good faith as I don't have the source  - Dumelow (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How long will the blurb last now? Not that I don't think Godard was important in his field but the headlines of his death have left the front pages of all news sites, even film-centric ones, and we're not Filmopedia. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’ll take a few more headlines to knock off Godard’s blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like most of the box office sources have been removed OR have a backup source which does verify the claims made. Article’s been improving by the day. Again kudos to the editors. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Charles (actor)

 * Support - Article looks good.--SitcomyFan (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and made big news in Australia because of his involvement in social issues Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Emmys

 * Oppose Lots of incorrect tense, talking about the event in the future. And the details seem rather dated and tired as we had Ted Lasso last year too, which wasn't posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot control if a show wins twice in a year, just as we cannot control if two major events in the same country happen back to back. M asem (t) 12:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And to add, the issue on last's years was the lack of any prose supporting the article at the time of nomination. That's not the case here outside things that may become clear in 24hr+ after the event. This one still needs ceremony details like presenters, it is definitely not yet ready, but its far better than last year. M asem (t) 12:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Only to add that the details I was mentioned above have since been added, so this appears to be reasonably prose complete. M asem (t) 00:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me, and I'm glad to see some prose in these awards articles for once. Whatever tense problems were in the article have been corrected. Agree with Masem that the fact that something won an award in two consecutive years doesn't seem relevant to whether an award show should be blurbed or not. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks in good shape, pleasant surprise to see some prose instead of just tables.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like the article’s good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready lets see if this ITN/R item is posted --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ITNR notes that the winner is the target article. Why isn't that the case here? Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it explicitly says that, and I don't believe it has been the practice either. —Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Under Awards: "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article". Anarchyte  ( talk ) 02:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then perhaps that was the rationale for the note "year's award article" next to the Emmy's ITNR entry. —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks sourced prose about the winners for best drama and best comedy. This is a regular expectation in sports events that merely list a table of winners. Past posted Emmys seem to have some minimal sourced text as well on the winners.—Bagumba (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's never been a requirement. There is an expectation that information about the ceremony itself be added instead of just relying on the award tables, just as we expect for a sports game championship, but not anything else that goes beyond that. M asem (t) 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 94th Academy Awards has some meaningful prose on the best picture winner beyond a mere table listing. The ceremony is just pageantry, and its minutiae is not a substitute for relevant content on the blurbed winner or competition. Televison awards do not get an exemption. —Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be in good shape. Kind of heavy on primary sources, though.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 07:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. At tennis articles we insist that every event, including wheelchair doubles etc. gets a prose writeup, nit just the blue riband events, and there's no reason this Should deviate from that. The article is not complete. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Since my oppose, the page has been expanded with at least some (minimal?) sourced prose about the blurbed winners.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh right, withdrawing Oppose then... I must confess I didn't actually look at the article, I was on my way to a parkrun and just took your word for it that the write ups hadn't been done! Kudos that it actually got improved this time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Armenia - Azerbaijan war

 * Infobox says that this has been going on for a year and four months. What about the recent "escalation" merits posting? That proposed blurb is uninformative. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The scale, not just skirmishes this is full on shelling and combat. It's breaking news so I didn't know whether to start a new article or just add it to an existing one. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment From what I've read, in the recent skirmish only Armenian side disclosed its casualties (reportedly 49). Hard to assess without Azerbaijani casualties. Ceasefire has been reached by now anyway. Brandmeistertalk  10:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurbs II or III Azerbaijani casualties are out, article appears to be ok now. Brandmeistertalk  06:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If an article or extensive section specifically about this escalation is written, then it definitely has a good chance of being featured here. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait looking at the current statements, Azerbaijan is painting it as “local countermeasures” while Armenia is giving “incursions into its territory”. At a glance, looks like border clashes to me, but I’ll hold my vote to see how the situation develops. Does not seem to be an all-out war in the making though. Juxlos (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Murky, developing. – Sca (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bulletin Is article now. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Article still needs a lot of work of course ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until we see whether this stays as clashes or turns into another war. The Kip (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Amended nomination to reflect new article.Abcmaxx (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written there isn't nearly enough detail for "large scale clashes" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – New article is a 120-word stub. – Sca (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It is uncertain whether this escalation will bring about full-scale war, and the clashes have been occurring for some time now. Let's circle back to this later if war does break back out. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principal, oppose on quality yesterday's clashes represent a significant escalation over what has taken place in the past year or two, and have forced an international response, which is beginning to trickle its way into international headlines. I find that significant enough.  However, the article does not currently pass on quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Time to reevaluate. The article is longer now and the casualties are substantial. Alt3? --Tone 06:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Alt3. Target linking could be narrowed to "renewed fighting". Brandmeistertalk  07:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Wednesday coverage agrees on toll of 99. AP, BBC, DW But article doesn't mention this, and despite its 900 words seems rather sparse, with over one-third devoted to 'reactions.' – Sca (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Great development in article. Ready for ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like the article’s good enough to post, but I’d note that it says at least 155 soldiers have died. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull This conflict has been ongoing since 1988 and the latest flare-up has been happening since May 2021. It doesn't seem to be getting much attention in the news and it's quite a minor entry in our long list of ongoing armed conflicts.  That lists six ongoing major wars with thousands of deaths this year while this one is buried deep in the minor conflicts which is two levels lower. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be very supportive when someone nominates a high-quality updated article on a current major conflict that isn't seeing quite as much news coverage as this. You're sadly right that a lot of major wars are hardly reported upon. However, such an otherstuffexists argument is unconvincing to me here. This too is a war with hundreds of deaths, and when someone writes a solid up-to-date article about it, we'll feature it. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That particular article is not at all special or unusual. For example, I drilled down on another minor conflict – Anglophone Crisis.  That seems quite similar in scale and we have a detailed timeline for 2022, with daily updates this month.  These all have sources and one can easily find more.  But such conflicts rumble on for years and so, if we cover them at all, they should be in Ongoing.
 * But another issue with such conflicts is that the information about them is far from reliable because it usually comes from the warring parties and so is distorted by fog of war and deliberate disinformation. For example, the recent Ukraine success was due to misleading reports about their southern offensive, which was designed to distract the other side.  See disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for much more.  So, as we're an encyclopedia with a historical perspective we should be waiting until the dust has settled and the truth emerges.  See also WP:NOTNEWS.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely love to be able to feature Anglophone Crisis on the front page. It's a solid article on a major current event. If a particularly noteworthy clash happens this month, the article gets expanded significantly, that would be a great inclusion for ITN in my opinion. But I recognize the issue of misinformation and lack of reporting. There's definitely issues with our setup. You may also notice that I'm not entirely ideologically aligned with other commenters here on ITN/C, so this might be a better topic for discussion on the general talk page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – article is looking very nice, good job! I hope we can keep it updated as the ceasefire continues. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Another cease-fire announced.   – Sca (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael DeGroote

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lowry Mays

 * More than long enough with 800+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found no troubles. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 09:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Lewis

 * Support I was just coming here to add this myself. Big name with a remarkable career. Article isn't perfect but has enough cites now to be passable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good but needs a few citations. --SitcomyFan (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, tentative on a few more citations. I've just added a few citations to the article where they were needed. Article is almost there apart from the discography. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per Doc Strange. Jusdafax (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: PnB Rock

 * Support I have added sourcing to the career section, I believe everything is sourced. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Everything looks to be sourced, seems like it's good to go. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment is this one ready to go? If there are outstanding issues I'll help to resolve them but it's been sitting at 2 supports and no other !votes for nearly a day. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, ready. RIP PNB DrewieStewie (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: William Klein

 * Wait: page move discussion in progress. In addition lots of unreferenced prose, and a large part of the article consists of untidy looking bullet points regarding his work, as well as cannot see any references in those sections either. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strike my oppose out of respect to nominator; did mention article needs work. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – His bio lacks examples of his work. – Sca (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick glimpse: the prose could use more footnotes, the filmography and the publications are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Practically unchanged after several days. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gwyneth Powell

 * Support no reason to oppose, the only thing I can think of is that there's no reference for the school she went to. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Ref added.  Spencer T• C 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Swedish general election

 * Comment. The source cited in the nom (The Guardian) says something different: The current headline of that Guardian article is "Rightwing bloc heading to victory in Swedish election, 90% of vote count suggests". In the text of the article itself it says: "With 90% of the vote counted, the right bloc of four parties had a share of the vote corresponding to a majority of three in the 349-seat parliament." Similarly, WaPo says that the right bloc appears to have won a narrow majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but that bloc is yet to form an official alliance. Technically Social Democrats won with the most votes but nowhere near enough to form government. Even when 100% is counted it will be by the narrowest of margins and if Swedish Democrats turn out to provide the PM as the biggest right-bloc party I can guarantee you there'll be a huge uproar.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an explicitly WP:OR argument. If and when we do post something to the ITN, the blurb should correspond to what WP:RS say. And right now most sources say that the the right bloc appears to have won the majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. The blurb is very much unhelpful. Most media reports group M, SD, KD and L together, and by the current count they do indeed have a majority. Such a blurb would be much better. Second, the count is still ongoing. It's not confirmed who will win before the remaining votes are counted. As such, posting a blurb at this moment is absolutely premature. Gust Justice (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Social Democrats will win a pyrrhic victory. Those 6% left will not change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a win at all for the Social Democrats. Sure they are the largest party, but that doesn't mean anything in the Swedish parliamentary system, where a majority in parliament must elect the Prime Minister. I don't think the outcome will change once the last votes are counted, but we need reliable sources to say so, not conclude it ourselves. Gust Justice (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The last votes remaining to be counted are the postal votes not the in-person votes. They may sway a different way albeit only slightly. Haris920 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we are going by that blurb, it clearly is against the WP:RS which therefore should not be posted. If the blurb reflects WP:RS, i’m for it but this nomination is too early and is all in all wrong. BastianMAT (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. I agree with Abcmaxx on this - the blurb can't be posted as is. If nothing else it may be worth waiting until we hear about coalitions or such, and if this does not come to pass we could at least say that the Social Democrats won the most seats (which may not tell the whole story but tells a bit more). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait This election is very close although the right-wing bloc currently has a slight majority of 175 seats. Vote counting is still ongoing and will continue until Wednesday. Social Democrats have been the largest party for the past 100 years and it should be noted that Sweden Democrats are now the second-largest party. I'd recommend to change the blurb.
 * Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Guardian now reports a one seat majority at 95% count. I agree with waiting. Regards So  Why  12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Update Social Democrats likely will win in terms of individual party performance, but right bloc may win by a small margin against the left-bloc.AP News Abcmaxx (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb and withdrawn blurb per above comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait ... for official, final results. For obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. The final results will not be in for a few days yet. It is likely that the liberal-conservative-far right bloc will win a majority, and the left-green-liberal bloc will lose power. It is, however, not clear yet. Furthermore, while it is likely that the Moderates and the Christian Democrats, or the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, can form government if these parties together with the Sweden Democrats can form government, they have yet to actually agree, complicated by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest party among the four but the Liberals have stated they will not to agree to any government the Sweden Democrats are part of. In short, it's far too early to make any statements around where this will lead – we don't present the probable as fact. /Julle (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on quality Whilst the consensus is to wait for the final results and what the coalitions will look like in terms of forming a majority government, I believe that so far the quality of the article of is very good; in terms of length, quality and referencing alike. If anyone disagrees please comment and/or improve the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be really nice if we had a stand-alone article on the conservative bloc/coalition. (But the current election article is easily looking good enough for blurbing of course!) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether they will form an official one yet and what the composition will be to be fair. So far it has been an informal alliance on a local level. Having said that we may need an article on the left bloc coalition equally as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's likely we won't get all the parties involved together in a coalition government – it's a very uneasy alliance, with the Liberals agreeing to talk to the Sweden Democrats to negotiate a government but stating they will not support a government including the Sweden Democrats; likewise, in the opposite bloc, the Centre Party can't imagine forming government with the Left Party. We're looking at minority governments with reluctant support from parties who don't exactly like each other but consider the alternatives worse. I'm not sure we should create articles for these uneasy alliances unless there is very good sourcing to do so specifically. They are in no way as strong as for example Alliance (Sweden), which was a real coalition, used to be. /Julle (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's exactly why I had the initial blurb as it was; no-one won really. Also, worth adding that the Red-Greens have an article regarding the left bloc which may need updating and inclusion in the election article. It may even needs to be split as it technically refers to 2x coalitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2 in case there is a minority government.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * am I right in saying that there's a chance of a hung parliament and another election or are we likely to see another minority government? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx I think a hung parliament would be far too speculative for us. All sources assume someone will form government based on the result we'll see on Wednesday or Thursday. /Julle (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, for final results. Alex-h (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait per the article, the results are not official because the election is close enough that mail in ballots could change the outcome of the election. Would support a fresh nomination once enough results have come in that we know the outcome. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait As to Le Monde and several other news outlets votes will be counted until Wednesday due to the narrow outcome.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is Wednesday and we still don't have a government to blurb on. The Socialists won, but the rightwing coalition appears to have won. I'd wait until the new Government assumes or on a new Government is agreed upon. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a third alternate blurb that more accurate reflects the reporting in Reliable Sources. As others have pointed out, I think a blurb in any case should only be posted once final results are available on Wednesday. Gust Justice (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As of 99.63% of votes counted, the Social Democrats will remain the largest parliamentary party, although the SD–M–KD–L bloc won the election by two seats. It's time to post this now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister Andersson conceded. Vacant0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She will resign tomorrow.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support al blurb 3 only. The other blurbs reflect a POV spin that does not correspond to how WP:RS are characterizing the election outcome. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III. The preliminary results are 100% counted. Some mention of the leadership of the coalition would also be helpful, but as the Sweden Democrats have won more seats than the Moderates who nominally lead the coalition (and will likely form the next government), this is unclear. The news item for the 2018 Italian general election, where a similar thing happened, took the same approach as blurb III. JackWilfred (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The national broadcaster, SVT, have just called the election. JackWilfred (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb III We can't blurb a new government yet, but the elections won the right wing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article meets all the hygiene for front page, but reading the aftermath section leaves me confused about what the ultimate outcome is. This may be the natural response to a very close election that doesn't have any clear winner (and thus is going to require some amount of sausage making to get a government out of). Rockphed (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can there be an additional blurb proposed? "Right-wing opposition" in the most recent alt blurb proposed does not appear in the text of the article.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposing another alt blurb should be fine. What would you suggest? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've proposed another blurb. Vacant0 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt4.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

South African dam collapse

 * Comment the only information about the actual collapse is "the dam wall collapsed due to a structural failure". That's it, the rest is filler. Also you need to add a map to fully implement User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub --LaserLegs (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the Jagersfrontein Mine and the diamond rush in 1870 have to do with the dam collapse in 2022? How about the court case "related to historic dumps"? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Largely absent from main English RS sites as of 19:30 Monday. Reuters report says one killed, 40 injured. Presumably developing. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's plenty in the sources tab? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait on article quality; this is basically a stub and most of the article is background taken from Jagersfontein. - Indefensible (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – On Tuesday absent from primary Eng. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still too stubby at 248 words of prose, and background already takes up more than half of the wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mavis Nicholson

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 13:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joyce Reynolds (classicist)

 * Support. Still working before her death too. The quality of her article is of a standard similar to or better than the four most recent deaths listed (James L. Fisher, LaDeva Davis, Anthony Varvaro and James Polshek), she has a photograph (two of those don't) and she sounds like a more remarkable person than all four men combined. --Gaois (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That last part is completely unfounded. - Indefensible (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not intended disrespectfully towards the four. A 103-year-old pioneering academic who was still working towards the end of her life, a Kenyon Medal winner (it is only awarded every two years), a scholarship is named after her, she is the oldest recipient of a D.Litt. honorary degree from Cambridge... --Gaois (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that notability is not part of the consideration for RD nominations. Let's focus on article quality and MainPage readiness. Any wikibio with no glaring problems would be fine, as long as the subject is indeed recently deceased. -- PFHLai (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And I imagine Davis would not appreciate being misgendered. Plus, the article has an uncited paragraph that needs to be fixed, unlike those four aforementioned articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies. 😧 Was the uncited paragraph that sentence about the book? I can't see anything else. There is a citation now. --Gaois (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That was the one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting to read article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake

 * Comment List of earthquakes in Papua New Guinea --LaserLegs (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not as many as I expected actually; this is only the 16th listed since Wikipedia was created, and 3rd most powerful among them it seems. - Indefensible (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah so one every 18 months or so, seems an average number of fatalities. Need more details on what "widespread damage" means to really evaluate. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Reports are coming in slow so may want to put this nomination on wait first. The region is currently in a total system outage so higher figures could come in days after the earthquake. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Commment We should link to the actual article rather than a list of all earthquakes in papua new guinea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – I think the article is already looking really solid! I think this is a really good subject to feature, though I'm of course looking forward to seeing the article expand more as more information flows in. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's rare to have an earthquake of that magnitude therefore definitely a notable event. The article is long, detailed and sourced, despite it concerning a remote part of the world. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They had a 7.6 three years ago, a 7.9 six years ago and five 7.0 or higher in the last four years what exactly is "rare" here? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are still almighty big earthquakes though, each notable in its own right. Abcmaxx (talk)


 * Wait – A big shake, but so far few casualties reported. – Sca (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please let's not go down the rabbit hole of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape, topic is in the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - is it that unusual though? USGS lists 19 7+ earthquakes in 2021 and 11 in that area since 2010. 7.6 is on the high end of Magnitude 7 quakes, but the death toll seems minimal. There were 3 magnitude 8+ earthquakes worldwide in 2021. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This does not seem like consensus at all.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Given the relatively low number of casualties, this seems somewhat UNDUE. Not widely covered Tues. – Sca (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is not a policy that applies to posting items on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lives matter. -- Sca (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Varvaro

 * Support Looks fine to me. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I see nothing in this article that would make me not want to recommend it for ITN posting; If anyone has any specific observations on problems with the article, please list them out here so that they can be addressed. KConWiki (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Javier Marías

 * Support Article appears to be in good shape, subject is notable enough. Rooves 13 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A number of uncited paragraphs and statements. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Subject is sure notable enough. Seems to have been quite a writer. But I agree with Black Kite that there are several unsourced phrases, to which I believe the sources can be found easily as I have come across a quite a good source on him. The literary mind/thought of Javier Marías is quite promising. I'll try to add some sources and come back with the result.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am taking a break. For anyone interested to source the Kingdom of Redonda part, it's a fun section with Kings, Duchies and a a charming diplomatic spat with the Government of the United Kingdom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I can see no uncited paragraphs now. A member of Spain's Royal Academy, a professor of Spanish literature and translation at Oxford and in the United States. People might also be interested in this, calling him "Spain's most prestigious novelist of the past half century", the Spanish Prime Minister calling him "one of the greatest writers of our age", all of his international prizes. --Gaois (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While I usually find something with what to expand the article, and there are sure still some uncited phrases like the few on his education and on his Translator, I'd AGF them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, the article seems ready to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive

 * Oppose we have it in ongoing Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Being in ongoing doesn't prevent us posting significant events, and I think Ukraine routing Russian forces in Kharkiv is one of those. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Counteroffensives are expected in war. It is a significant liberation of territory, but still a long way to go and I think it's covered by the ongoing item. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While we do post big stories while the main ongoing event is going on, this is part of the normal flow of wars. --M asem (t) 13:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major development in the war. Article also looks good. Izium should be spelled as it is on its own page.Khuft (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * same thing with Kupiansk. Khuft (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — War's going to do its war thing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I can see it's a new development, I don't see it as newsworthy yet. If they can actually hold on to it and "turn the tide", that's something; but if Russia were to push them back next week it would just be another development. I think the main article in ongoing suffices, for now. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 13:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The major collapse of the Russian army we're seeing now is far from what was "expected", it is not a "normal" war thing but rather surprising and a defining, historic even, moment in this conflict that should be highlighted on ITN. Shanes (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the major collapse of the Russian army, yet. A major retreat in one region, but the war is not yet won and we don't have a crystal ball. Polyamorph (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been widely described as a sudden collapse of one of the war's principal front lines. The war is not yet won, but it is a significant event regardless of who wins. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "One of the principle lines". Exactly. It is clearly a significant battle but the war is ongoing. Similar progress was also made by Russia earlier in the War. It is right that it is in ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * clearly a significant battle - a strong argument in favour of posting. The fact that the war isn't over shouldn't change that.
 * Arguments like these, and those by other editors such as Sca, Paradise Chronicle, and LaserLegs, appear to be arguments against posting any blurbs about the war. This wouldn't align with ITN guidelines, which state that we should not oppose a story based on an assessment of the appropriateness of the topic, and would be detrimental to our readers, as one of our purposes is to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Err no, my argument is strongly against posting and it's why we have it as ongoing, we can't post every significant event in the war. Polyamorph (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are describing this as Ukraine's biggest victory, and most significant gains, since Russia retreated from Kyiv. You are right that we can't post every significant event of in the war, but we if we can't post the most significant event of the past five months what can we post? BilledMammal (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a HYPOTHETICAL example of a postable blurb: "Putin resigns in controversy over Ukraine War." (Preceding purely imaginary.) -- Sca (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn't post Russia taking major objectives we ought not post Ukraine doing so while this is still sitting in ongoing. Now if you're ready to crowbar this forever war out of the ongoing section I'm happy to support relevant blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason presented against posting Russia taking major objectives were that they weren't pivotal; they were normal events in the course of the war. A major counteroffensive, advancing at a rate unseen since the start of the war, does not meet that definition and should be considered on its own merits, rather than rejected because we didn't post other things. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but we didn't blurb the fall of Mariupol and we won't be blurbing this. I don't get hysterical over Ukranian agitprop and don't see anything here but another grim milestone in an 18 year long struggle. Thanks though. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukranian agitprop?
 * And we didn't post the end of the siege of Mariupol for two reasons; it was nominated prematurely, three days before the end of the siege, and because it was considered inevitable. Neither of those reasons apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the discussion? Consensus was "sufficiently covered by ongoing" --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose would perhaps meet the requirements of a blurb if it wasn't covered by ongoing YD407OTZ (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There's reason for optimism on Ukraine's part: AP BBC Reuters France24 DW But taking the long view, this is another chapter in Russia's merciless war on Ukraine. It's not over. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another angle: "Russian nationalists rage." -- Sca (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a campaign in an ongoing war which we already have posted as ongoing event.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd have supported if not for the previous precedent of not posting any development in the war as long as it's in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We've posted several developments, including the Sinking of the Moskva and the Bucha massacre. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ongoing events, we have to Waite for major developments. Alex-h (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What would you consider a major development? BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Gotitbro, we don't need to post every development in this war, unless something massive (i.e. nuclear war, assassination) happens. Rooves 13 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – After 10 hours, it's 11-3 against posting. – Sca (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it’s 12-3. I’m opposing per all above. Already on ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Alsor. Jusdafax (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is an ongoing event. OpSec is also important here. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger

 * Long enough (500+ words of prose). Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots, AGF'ing all non-English refs. Earwig found absolutely nothing to complain at all. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 13:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Ging

 * More than long enough with 700+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 13:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Gottfried

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Cignetti Sr.

 * Support Referenced, adequate depth of coverage. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: B. B. Lal

 * Comment Lack of information on early life (schooling; even where he did bachelor's from; or the year for "master's degree in Sanskrit from Allahabad University"). Gotitbro (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of publications needs an ISBN/ref. Not sure if Google Books links count as sufficient?  Spencer T• C 03:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Following the publications, the Honors section is also mostly unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marsha Hunt

 * Comment – Interesting, long career by a person who lived to 104. – Sca (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. RIP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Polshek

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage. Referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 03:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Rippelmeyer

 * Long enough (400+ words of prose). Don't see anything missing with the coverage. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no complaints at all. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) New High Commissioner for Human Rights

 * Oppose Not a major leadership role (like UN Speaker). --M asem (t) 01:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least this blurb as the commissioner himself is a redlink. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a non-starter because the subject does not currently have their own article for the blurb, probably a SNOW close. - Indefensible (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose beause the nomination fails WP:ITNCRIT due to the subject not having their own article. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

RD:Sonny West

 * Comment. The Discography section has no footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Status unchanged after half a week. --PFHLai (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: LaDeva Davis

 * Long enough (almost 400 words of prose). Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no concerns. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Marciano Cantero

 * Support when all issues are fixed. Notable death. --Bedivere (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that notability of death is not a requirement. (See last line in the pale yellow box above.) Let's focus the discussion on article quality and MainPage readiness. --PFHLai (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. I support the article's posting on ITN when it has its issues corrected. Bedivere (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Biography" is completely unreferenced. Cambalachero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Still largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Queen Elizabeth II

 * Support - of course, and immediately. Nfitz (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Obvious support -- Rest in Peace. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb article is FA Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So it happened. The article needs proper updates, but because of protection will take a bit longer than for unprotected articles. Shall we use the picture from the article? Tone 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support speedy post Polyamorph (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once article is sufficiently updated Jbvann05  17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * support blurb Not much to say, this is a major event. <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,#ff8c00,#fc0,green,blue,#9400d3,#ff1493);border-radius:1em;color:#fff">  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Jip Orlando (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - article is FA and importance isn't up for debate. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: No question. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Major news outlets confirm it now. Shocking. Definetely needs to be put up inmediately. Mjeims (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The day is finally here. Davey2116 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, No question this is a world figure whose death will be on most front pages. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:D5D8:FD3A:6642:D1AD (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and post immediately No question about the notability of a Queen who has been Britain's anchor for almost three quarters of a century.  aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Suppport It should be up ASAP. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support There is an article for the death and funeral: Death of Elizabeth II. Thriley (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Image is added for cascading protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, obviously. Not every day the longest-reigning monarch in British history dies. Kurtis (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support God save the King! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment that image of Liz Truss needs to go. God I feel bad for snickering when I saw it in conjunction with the headline...--SinoDevonian (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The image has been protected on commons, can be replaced here now by an admin I think. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Tone 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, and please get her photo up and ditch the one of Truss. The Queen trumps her. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support of course, should the blurb mention that Charles, King of the United Kingdom has become the new monarch? We usually announce new leaders. — xaosflux  Talk 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be worth waiting at least a few hours to see if a regnal name is announced. The official announcement so far just referred to him as the King'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably wait until crowned. He can still turn round and refuse it until then. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He is already king though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both BBC and CNN say that Charles immediately became King upon the Queen's death Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And the Royal Family too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Legally he is king whether he likes it or not. If he doesn't want to be king then Parliament would have to pass a law saying that he isn't king, as they did for Edward VIII (who was never crowned).  Hut 8.5  18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * True but in this case I would suggest leaving him out of the blurb for now since the news coverage almost completely focuses on her death and not on his ascension. If and when news coverage becomes mainly about him, we can change it accordingly. Regards So  Why  18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so, and if the name changes can update the blurb then. Think this can be closed though, blurb and photo are up with obvious consensus for it. Any further changes can happen at WP:ERRORS. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll do it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-blurb comment Perhaps change the image to File:The Queen of New Zealand, 1986 crop.jpg, as now being used on the article? Jheald (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so...she is wearing New Zealand decorations. But I think the photo should be changed to more of a portrait photo. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-blurb comment In terms of Charles, Buckingham Palace confirmed he was the King in the death announcement. And the Prime Minister confirmed that he was King Charles III in her speech. Something should be added to tbe blurb. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two full stops at the end of the sentence-would be good if an admin can remove this. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I previously posted this at Talk:Main Page and it was suggested that I come here instead. As is mentioned on that page in the previous discussion, Elizabeth II is scheduled TFA for 19 September to coincide with the funeral. By then, it's very likely that her ITN item will still be live. I suggest that for the time that the TFA is up, we change the ITN item so that the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is in bold font. I say this for a variety of reasons: Thoughts?  Schwede 66  05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * that article is in good shape
 * it would appear strange to have a TFA and an ITM main item point to the same article
 * to point to the funeral article on the day of the funeral would seem appropriate
 * Wanna nominate the funeral wikipage on the day of the funeral? God knows what newsworthy calamities await us over the next few days, bumping the current blurb off ITN soon. No doubt the funeral wikipage will get lots of support !votes then. --PFHLai (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is an excellent idea, and would support this as proposed. What should the ITN situation be on September 20? Should we return the ITN setup to the death and ascendance, or should we keep it on the funeral after the TFA has ended? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind whether it reverts to the current blurb or stays like that.  Schwede 66  21:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That somebody is buried after they die is not news, and if this gets bumped by other events then it shouldnt artificially be returned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James L. Fisher

 * Long enough (almost 400 words of prose). Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig found no problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dagmar Schipanski

 * Comment Added sources and added myself to updaters. Grimes2 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support no reason to oppose.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lance Mackey

 * Oppose: Most of the improvement to this article in recent times was a result of your typical WikiEd trainwreck, a group of editors eager to collaborate amongst themselves so long as they pass a class, and not the least bit interested in collaborating with the community at large. Here's what I came up with right off the top of my head:
 * 1) The order is extremely disjointed for a biography, as if to suggest that it was intended to be a fanboy exercise first and foremost.
 * 2) Too many primary sources. The sourcing in general resembles detritus found in incidental Google searches, missing a number of higher-quality sources (several books, for starters)
 * 3) Higher-quality sources have given significant weight to his pre-mushing career as a commercial fisherman and his resultant bouts of addiction. The article appears to gloss that over in favor of giving weight to fanboy trivia and recentism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That WikiEd assignment ended in April 2021. Pretty sure the recent 40 or so edits in 2022 have nothing to do with that. --PFHLai (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and topic as a whole, not in a bubble driven by news of his death ("the sum total of human knowledge", right?). The Anchorage Daily News, the source cited above, is a pitiful shell of its former self.  Early versions of that story began with repeating the family's Facebook post, followed by repeating large portions of our article.  Work commitments prevented me from following it further to see if it actually turned into a respectable journalistic piece.  I'm sure none of that matters to those who believe RS is solely a matter of "Why, I found it on this website and not that website, so therefore...". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Apart from the issues brought up by RadioKAOS above, there are also a handful of {cn} tags that should be resolved before this nom can proceed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You fail to disclose that those CN tags were placed by you, including one to a statement found in the Outside source. So this is another game of one group of editors sitting back and trying to force another group to do all the real work?  That ≠ collaboration, my friend. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  03:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I threw in some {cn} tags.... but, wait! game? sitting back and waiting for others to do work? Hmmm... look, RadioKAOS, if I am too involved in the writing, I should not help with reviewing and posting on MainPage. Kind of a conflict of interest there. Admins should not be showcasing one's own work on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernard Shaw

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to meet the requirements. Looks good. Nascar9919 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anne Garrels

 * Comment Added citations and expanded the article a bit. .--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Surgical amputation of a limb 31,000 years ago in Borneo

 * Weak Oppose Doesn't seem too notable for the news, but is an amazing accomplishment regardless. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Why did you nominate this, ?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The question rather is...why does Count Iblis make nominations that might as well seem facetious? Suggesting snow close. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's his nature. – Sca (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InvadingInvader. Amazing? Yes. Significant news? Clearly no. Count Iblis should better try nominating this for DYK. a! rado (C✙T) 19:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stale by about 31,000 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Brazil celebrates its 200th anniversary of independence
Neutral This seems like something that would be a bit more of a domestic event, but the 200th anniversary is generally notable for a country. However, I'm searching through archives of ITN, and I can't find anything on ITN celebrating China's 70th anniversary, so I don't think Consensus is in favor of these anniversaries. I don't know what to think; 200 years is a BIG milestone, and Brazil is a BIG country, but do milestones generally get inserted into here? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is something that we'd normally handle through WP:OTD or as a WP:TFA. Something really significant and actually newsworthy would need to occur at the celebrations for them to be nominated at ITN. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose arbitrary round number since independence. WP:OTD should cover. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. ~200 countries celebrate an independence every year. Why is Brazil's more important than any other's? DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I guess suggesting this applies to all countries isn't exactly accurate but point remains that it's quite a large number either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is news 200 years old. For starters, make an article Brazil Bicentennial, and if something truly newsworthy takes place in it (beyond just the anniversary itself) we may discuss that. Cambalachero (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not news, perfect for On This Day. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Record women's football transfer

 * Comment posting the Neymar transfer was a mistake, but if it's a thing we're going to do, then doing so for womens soccer as well as mens makes sense to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I also don't agree with posting the Neymar transfer. But the rationale of the consensus was that it was not just an important sports story, but also a major global event with extensive news coverage, in such a manner that made it almost sui generis. I'm not sure if we're seeing quite the same impact with the Walsh transfer.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be the detriment to nominating early to generate discussion; the transfer window closed five minutes ago, and it got a breaking news bulletin on the BBC. Perhaps the story will be bigger, perhaps it won't, but we can only see that over the next day or so. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This will open the floodgates if this gets posted. Record men's basketball player, then women's basketball player? What about volleyball? Rugby? Handball? Baseball? It will cause all sort of conundrums, and whilst an interesting story even if two non-sporting businesses did a record deal in a particular sector it wouldn't get posted. Neymar was slightly different in that it was a world record across all sports and received much more coverage, but if for example another men's player breaks the record again I'm not sure that would get posted now, especially when salary and bonuses are much more at play than transfer fee alone.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose even considering the record amount. One previous posting should not be taken as consensus to post more like it. M asem  (t) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This topic is journalistic and not suitable for wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is ITN... Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN's purpose is to feature articles that happen to be in the news, and not itself to be a news source. Hence why we always go on about not being a new ticker. M asem (t) 19:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is really something that pertains to sports, which based on consensus on Serena Williams' retirement, doesn't usually belong here. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Incremental update. No disrespect meant to Walsh, but do we know if she's still got this record even a year from now? Good DYK piece. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Alex. Meh. – Sca (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ugandan landslides disaster

 * Oppose not even a stub. The article and the blurb are equal. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did say why that is at the moment in the nomination... Abcmaxx (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Update Added a lot more refs, expanded; now have a start ready to expand on it.Abcmaxx (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSELINE still doesn't communicate more than a landslide happened and X people were killed. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It's a stub at 820 B (137 words) at this moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now per Muboshgu. It's been three days, still a stub. 208.92.242.44 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Albania and Iran cut ties

 * Comment the update in the target is tagged cn and doesn't really explain why this happened. Lets get some details to evaluate significance. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the sources its due to Iran's recent cyberattack on Albania. The article needs updating, bear with me. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This might belong on the article 2022, but I'm not sure about here. I'll say Weak Oppose unless this turns into a war and tensions further escalate. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose For argument's sake I made sure to consider "would we post this if this was two large countries", but the reality is this isn't horribly rare. There are about 200 countries on Earth with some change likely in that number over time. I think it's hard to justify posting the cutting of ties between two countries unless there is a lot of highly-publicized and impactful conflict that precedes it. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Err Albania is home to a disproportionately large number of Iranian dissidents and severing ties completely is very rare. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A big deal for little Albania, perhaps, but lacking in general significance or impact. – Sca (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is a fascinating tidbit of diplomatic news, I feel it's maybe more appropriate for DYK? It's also not really been referenced in major newspapers (at least not in the ones I typically consult). Khuft (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? Irish Times, DW, ABC News. The US has just officially responded to this as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, then. I hadn't come across this on Der Spiegel and a few other German newspapers, The Guardian, the FT or Figaro, which are the ones I regularly check - if a news appears in one or more of them, it's usually a sign for me that it's been picked up and will be viewed by many readers in Europe. But maybe the news hasn't made its way into them yet, or I've overlooked it. I still feel it's not major news. Khuft (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Give it a few hours. Albania in anglophone news is usually woefully underreported though in general. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, I last heard this much about it in The Crepes of Wrath. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "... and the main export is furious political thought" Abcmaxx (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Breaking diplomatic relations is indeed a fairly rare event and normally I would support. However the incident doesn't appear significant enough to justify its own article, which is a customary requirement for most noms at ITN, and the target article has only two sentences dedicated to the matter. Sorry, but that's not enough for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this did cross my mind however my thought process was that this is a culmination of about 45 years worth of tensions, and any new article would probably not have all the background that's central to this. As for the length, this is breaking news essentially, please let it have a chance to expand. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx Perfectly open to reconsideration if the article can be adequately expanded. Ideally it should have its own page that begins with the cyber-attack and any relevant background. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment First of all, thanks for having added the additional sources. While for now I'd tend to keep my oppose !vote, I would suggest modifying the blurb to reflect that Albania unilaterally cut its diplomatic relations with Iran, accusing it of cyberattacks. Khuft (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Albania did not have an embassy in Iran, while Iran had an embassy in Tirana. So ultimately it was never on equal footing. Also I don't know what Teheran's reaction is/will be. It's such a long, tense and complex relationship im not sure we should be making such an assertion just yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Severing of diplomatic ties is rare and significant, even if it involves smaller nations. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is not up-to-snuff with regards to either comprehensiveness or referencing. There's large gaps in coverage; some sections consist of only 1-2 short sentences, and several statements appear to be entirely unverified at this point.  Unless the article is significantly expanded and better referenced, it feels largely like a WP:COATRACK to hang this particular recent news item on.  If this is fixed and corrected, my vote would be for full support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A sideshow in any case. -- Sca (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It is quite exceptional for two countries to sever relations with one another. We would certainly post this if this is two large countries, and relations of Iran (being a middle power) tends to actually be meaningful in some way. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support You can even argue that relatively stable relations being cut between a small country is definitely more relevant for ITN than already tense relations between large ones. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am leaning on support, but I would like to see a bit more expansion on the target article. The impact of this severance would be interesting and important to cover here, for example. Right now, I and other readers would be left with a lot of questions as to what this exactly means. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update Expanded this quite a bit and used all the references so far mentioned. Dedicated section at Albania–Iran relations Abcmaxx (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose if approved, we'd have to post every time some countries severe ties with Taiwan or Israel. As for me, this is not ITN worthy, also not after the update.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually very few countries cut ties with either Taiwan or Israel as those that oppose their statehood never form diplomatic relations in the first place as doing so would legitimise their status which they oppose. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a non-involved person should make a judgement on this. Not sure there is anything more to add. Quality issues have been fixed although it is a section not a stand-alone article in itself. Few opposes on notability, several supports.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Vietnam karaoke bar fire

 * Oppose stub and utterly insignificant run-of-the-mill disaster --LaserLegs (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Fires in Vietnam category only has four articles, three about fires. Stub, sure. But apparently not that common (maybe just obscured). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool now do nightclub fires in developing countries --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not cool to lump them together like that. Different building codes, different humidities, different wind conditions...it all matters more than GDP or whatever shithole bank metric where public conflagaration's concerned. You want this less fortunate bar done dirty, do it yourself! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- I'd support blurbing this if it happened in the US, so I'll support blurbing it because it happened in Vietnam. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Too stubby; there's barely anything written. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From our Vietnam article: "It is generally perceived that the country's media sector is controlled by the government...." -- Sca (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Two sentences. – Sca (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, Article is too short. Alex-h (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is currently a three-sentence stub. Please expand it, or it won't qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still awaiting expansion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Page got moved to 2022 Binh Duong karaoke bar fire. Still only 44 words after a week. Way too short to qualify. --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Herman (Swaiko)
Comment, Text does not say anything about his death. Alex-h (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, two uncited paragraphs in the "Election to Metropolitan" section. I also couldn't find what in the cited source supported the statement: "Aware of this coming recommendation, Metropolitan Herman retired in September 2008" - Dumelow (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Temporary Pull. Recommend a temporary pull to have the sourcing completed before re-promoting to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pulled Stephen 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dan Schachte

 * Support G2G as usual with this nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Straub

 * Support Article is fine as is Bēṯ Nahrēn (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment career and bibliography has unreferenced sections --LaserLegs (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bibliography now fully sourced. Additional sources are available if any are problematic. Career section still needs some sources, though, if anyone would like to chip in. I'll try and have a look next time I log on to Wiki - just did the Bibliography section. SitcomyFan (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - Article now fully sourced. SitcomyFan (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready nice work --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mariella Mehr

 * Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Guy Morriss

 * Support Looks fine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely you can write more than three sentences about the 15-year playing career of one of the greatest centers in Eagles history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Useful? --PFHLai (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I expanded it some, but tbh I didn't even think to because there's not much to say about an NFL center, no stats to track. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Littell

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Helen Potrebenko

 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lars Vogt

 * Thank you for nominating. The last time I looked (last night) the recordings were not referenced, nor some other facts. I will begin work right now, was planned anyway. He was an internationally known and playing classical pianist who died too soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have the basics, but still no refs for all recordings, and there should be more about his way of playing. I need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Recordings. Grimes2 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you are great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moon Landrieu

 * Support I've fixed up the article to make sure it was good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Looks good enough for government work. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) UK conservative party election / new PM

 * Comment - Better wait...until everything's done and ready, as usual for such events. PenangLion (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Agree with nominator's comments; best to wait until Truss is sworn in tomorrow (Sept 6). Compusolus (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. We don't usually wait for the formal assumption of office, we post when the winner is determined(i.e. we posted Biden winning when RS determined him to be the winner, not when he took office). Should be posted when ready. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two separate qualifiers in play. A) We post general elections results, which indicate an individual will become leader. B) We post succession when A does not apply. We do not generally post party election wins, and would do well not to create a special exception just for the UK.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't so much about posting the leadership party win, but providing some context for the manner in which Truss will become Prime Minister. There is a greater than 99% chance that she will become Prime Minister tomorrow, so it seems pointless to wait until then to post the altblurb. In the event that she does not become Prime Minister tomorrow (the two most obvious reasons being that Truss dies and/or the Queen dies), then this will be a blurb in itself. Chrisclear (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with PenangLion and Compusolus - there is no need to wait. I agree with 331dot, the leadership ballot has taken place. Therefore the time to post is now. However, the proposed blurb "becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is wrong because she is not yet the Prime Minister. Therefore I have proposed an altblurb which says that she is set to become Prime Minister. Chrisclear (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. That blurb makes sense if it's posted today. If the item goes up today and is still around tomorrow after she takes office, then the headline can be adjusted accordingly. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the view of Chrisclear above that the time to post is now, and withdraw the views expressed in my comment above. Compusolus (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – BBC and AP note she will become PM when formally appointed by the queen on Tuesday. Widely expected and not breaking news. As a hybrid news/encyclopedia fixture, ITN should post this when Ms. Truss actually is PM. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: Suggested pic. looks a bit dark. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just Trussy. Bit dark. Kingsif (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, her dress and the backdrop seem dark, too. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Chrisclear and and Compusolus, and support altblurb for now, and the original blurb tomorrow when she actually becomes PM. EditMaker Me (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Liz doesn't "become Prime Minister" until she meets Grand Old Liz. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  13:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support upon the takeover tomorrow. My condolences to the United Kingdom. Juxlos (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ITNR, but poor UK when the country's democratic capacity falls on the opinion of 150,000 people to "elect" a prime minister. However, the circus is finally over.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Funnilly enough I bet those same 150k were probably up in arms when Gordon Brown took office. And if you think that's bizzare wait till you hear about how the House of Lords functions. Unfortunately there isn't a Democratic deficit in the United Kingdom article we can link this to, because criticism of the system isn't new at all, especially recently. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Truss has not succeeded Johnson yet. If we are to post this blurb today, it should say that Truss has been nominated to become PM. Succession does not occur until tomorrow. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Multiple unsourced claims of fact. CN tags added to the more obvious ones. Support once properly sourced and Liz kisses The Other Liz's hands. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and Oppose on quality Changes in the leadership of a party, whatever and wherever it may be, is not ITNR. When she is officially and formally appointed prime minister, it’s ITNR and so it will have to be posted. I'm sure we can all hold out for a day. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think any change in the head of a sovereign state is ITN/R though, including dictatorships and monarchies for example. And technically there was an election, just an internal not general one. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's truly no way for her not to become PM without it meriting a blurb, I see no reason - article quality permitting - not to post this now and just update (but not bump) the blurb when it becomes formal. —Cryptic 15:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How many cn tags are there? If it’s only a few it can be posted, but more then five it should wait. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support immediate posting alt blurb. It can be adjusted later. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait: It's one more day until she actually becomes PM, it can wait until then. PolarManne (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until actually appointed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  17:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are seven citation needed tags: three at the end of paragraphs, and four bullet points. Those need to be taken care of before this gets posted. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until tomorrow when she is actually appointed PM (should be around 12pm BST) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support this is a major change to world leadership. My personal threshold is if it's a country covered in the media (like Ukraine, North Korea, or Afghanistan), or if its a G20 nation/major world power, include their leadership changes here by default. Everything else should be on a case by case basis. Wait if needed. Possible alternative blurb: Liz Truss succeeds Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If you don't think leader of the Conservative party needs to be mentioned in the blurb, this could work as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure we even need to mention BoJo. His era is over. -- Sca (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait — Truss isn't Prime Minister just yet. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting now, quality permitting. The event that's "in the news" is her election as leader of the Conservative Party. Her becoming PM tomorrow is a consequence of it, as per the UK parliamentary system. On the quality topic, most of the "citation needed" tags seem to be in the section of people that supposedly expressed interest to run but didn't do so in the end... not a major drama in my opinion. Khuft (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hasn't happened yet. Not official. -- Sca (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have added that I support the alt blurb. Indeed, she's currently "set to become PM". I would argue that the event that's in the news (and indeed is the bolded article) is her election to the Leadership of the Tories, which automatically triggers her becoming PM tomorrow, given the majority the Tories have in Parliament. That's why the international press is speaking about it today. Khuft (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until Truss is inaugurated tomorrow the 6th and then support alt0. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 19:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until officially PM, and then support. The blurb can stay the same. Willsteve2000 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support New leader/head of state/head of government is always ITN blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. She hasn't succeeded as the leader of the Tories, she was internally elected in a party leadership challenge. She does however succeed PM role as a result. The system has many criticisms but let's not mislead people with the blurb. Added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on article quality, oppose nominated blurbs I don't understand why becoming leader of her party matters to the blurb; becoming PM is what's relevant. -- Kicking222 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's the only way you can become PM in the UK and who leads the party differs depending on the party in question. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe for simplicity's sake, only mention Truss has become PM and not party leadership elections et all that? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why becoming party leader is important, but not why it's necessary for the blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We usually post the link to the election article, so same applies here? Becoming PM is almost a side effect to becoming party leader in this instance. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional support for Alt3 that avoids the party leadership from the blurb as irrelevant for an international audience. Citations needed will need to be attended to before posting.  Schwede 66  03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt0 ITN/R. They're currently en route to Scotland for the handover. Good riddance to Boris, but we're stuck with another awful leader named Tru__ now. Davey2116 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until 12:10 BST (11:10 GMT) According to the Guardian, that is when Truss' audience with the Queen is, although impossible to know the exact point she's asked to form a government. Alternative blurb II is best then. JackWilfred (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Now - by the time you get it up it will be old news ..... Ariconte (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I know I nominated this item, but just to note that it is not quite ready yet... there are too many citations needed at the moment, per above comments. WIll try to fix some of them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update I've gone through and sorted out the cites, so I think it's OK now but maybe an admin can assess. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update It’s official, she’s PM now. Juxlos (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yup, Guardian, AP say she's now PM. – Sca (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt2 – Sca (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I deleted my altblurb, because it is stale now that Truss is Prime Minister. Altblurb 3 is also stale for the same reason, however I have not struck it out because I did not suggest it. Chrisclear (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb2 now that Truss is Prime Minister. Chrisclear (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted: "Liz Truss (pictured) succeeds Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom."  Sandstein   12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand this may be WP:ERRORS but I did mention this above; she did not succeed as leader, only as PM, there was an internal election she won in her party. That blurb is misleading. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First Johnson was leader, now it is Truss, which means that she succeeds him in the office, irrespective of the means by which she does so.  Sandstein   16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we drop the "leader of the conservative party" from the ITN? The relevant thing is that she is the new PM, not the party leader (though both positions are obviously connected). --Tone 16:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only 19 words. Don't see a need for a change. -- Sca (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not a question of length, but that it’s totally non-ITNR interesting that she becomes the leader of the Conservative Party. As much as it’s connected with being prime minister. The blurb should be changed and not put, after a moderately long blurb, what is really important. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because her appointment as PM stems from her appointment as leader of the Conservatives. It also matches the format used in previous cases, e.g. Boris. I don't see any reason to change this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – OK, who changed it to "Liz Truss (pictured) succeeds Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" – a mere 13 words (including pictured), and why? In this case, less does seem like less. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that. There isn't consensus for the change suggested. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. There wasn't any reason for it. -- Sca (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Luding earthquake

 * Updated to "more than 30" killed per Reuters Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support unfortunately high death toll. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It is a sad event, but is suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Sad indeed. Kudos to those who worked on the article! Khuft (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral This is an unfortunate, sad, and notable event. I'm a little concerned, however, on including it when compared to other events, like Pakistan floods, the Uyghurs, Gorbachev, and Liz Truss.
 * InvadingInvader (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, per above, high death toll in consideration and with regards to the coverage. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks suitable for main page and I agree that this is notable enough for the main page. Rockphed (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This event is notable and suitable enough for ITN. Bdonjc <b style="color:#FF0000">talk</b> 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated death toll in blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support very decent article, cited and with appropriate sub-headings and sufficient level of depth. Especially given this is a recent event and concerns a non-anglophone region. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Not seeing any lingering quality issues on article and definitely has support. --M asem (t) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Please update the blurb per NYT reports 65 deaths Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please update the blurb to 74 per Reuters Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment can a contributor please update the blurb to reflect the updated article (death toll should be 82)? I requested this a day ago yet nobody has picked up on this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it's 86 now. The blurb on MainPage has just been updated. @Dora the Axe-plorer: For swifter response, please try WP:ERRORS next time. --PFHLai (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Till

 * Support Looks ready to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wes Freed
Support, just reviewed this at DYK and it looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Klyuchevskaya Sopka deaths

 * Support Such accidents are not uncommon but definitely rare with these casualties out of the Himalayas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provincial This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a particularly huge calamity (sad as that may be), and the entire update is a single paragraph based on a single source. -- Kicking222 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ...Sad that 8 isn't considered a big calamity, not sad that more people didn't die. Don't wanna... don't wanna be misconstrued there. -- Kicking222 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am ambivalent about posting this from a notability standpoint, but do not like that it is pointing to a 1 paragraph entry in an article that (I feel) is not really ready for the main page. I count 5 "Citation Needed" tags and the article seems to be written as a proseline. Rockphed (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it's not important enough for its own article, nor for ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The short added section doesn't seem particularly valuable to feature as it stands right now. I think an independent article might be viable for this accident, and if such an article was made well it might be an excellent thing to blurb. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 8 die performing dangerous activity. It's sad, but I don't think it rises to the level of ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Coroebus (horse)

 * Support – Tragic young death. Article is looking good; I do think the first paragraph of Background still requires a citation. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good spot, I've cited this - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Chilean national plebiscite

 * Oppose on article quality. Article needs updating, expanded text and improved referencing with an emphasis on some of the tables. Sorry but this is not currently up to scratch for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the issues mentioned by Ad Orientem are solved. The protests that were partly cause for the constitutional project were posted back in 2019.--NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment My only concern is that I think "overwhelmingly" should be striken from the blurb. Nowadays 61,86% is a large margin, but the word can be misleading and is not neutral. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support  now and putting the inevitable Chilean migrant crisis into Ongoing when they join the millions of others migrating north fleeing the failed socialist experiments of Latin America --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Neolibs caused the crisis in the first place, but whatever you say bud. The Kip (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure you got things right, LaserLegs. Chile rejected the left-leaning proposed Constitution; but that doesn't mean that bill was going to convert Chile into a socialist country. --Bedivere (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hooray! In that case Oppose nothing happened. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid factoring opinions about the topic (or even about other topics) into this discussion. Base your replies on the article's current quality and the ITN inclusion criteria. Cambalachero (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! --Bedivere (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not any place for offhanded political commentary, that was part of the civility problem we discussed. M asem (t) 04:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't share your political beliefs here in ITN. No one cares, and it weakens your argument. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Have taken the drafted Constitution content into its own article. --Bedivere (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think completely removing the description of the proposed constitution leaves a hole in the article. I don't suppose you can put a summary back? Rockphed (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once prose is added in the Results section. That is notorious, despite what Operation Condor fans say a few lines above. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Operation Condor fans" is highly offensive and uncalled for. This is not the place for political squabbling... and that goes for both the left, the right, and anything in between. Cambalachero (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If LaserLegs is allowed to spew his drivel above, I believe we should be able to respond in kind. The Kip (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideally, people shouldn't be able to tell anyone's political views from merely reading their ITN comments. Alas. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * More like Superfan! Argentina and Chile have the highest HDI and lowest murder rates south of the Rio Grande. Shame more wasn't done in the region when there was will to do so. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd better not say anything about your “More like Superfan!”… _-_Alsor (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support notability but oppose quality changing a fundamental foundation of a state or a country-wide rare referendum is worthy of notability. However the article has lots of statistics and charts (which is great) but almost no prose, and as someone not versed the subject I'm still none the wiser. Why was it allegedly "left-leaning"? Who proposed it and why? What was hoped to be achieved? Why now? What happens now that it was rejected? Implications for those who supported and opposed? Basic questions are left unanswered. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, Support on notability. I can't think of a similar event being posted, but I also cannot think of a similar event happening.  I think we would have posted if Brexit had failed at the voting booth.  I'm sure someone can find any previous times similar things got nominated.  On article quality, while the article is probably technically long enough, it has sections that are just tables.  We don't post ITN/R sports events when they have those types of sections, we shouldn't post elections (however notable) in this condition. Rockphed (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in spite of no changes occurring. Such a vote is big in the context of the functions of Chile internally, but could certainly impact international relations as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support notability, but the article needs to be expanded first ibid above arguments.InvadingInvader (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, per above. I agree that it is a significant event and has been covered internationally. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So, uhh, has any progress been made in terms of article quality? Seems like everyone wants to post due to good notability. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings

 * Support in principle but article is currently a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is now adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on principle once article is expanded. The Kip (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ... pending article development. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Big news. Definitely atypical for the area. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Truly bizarre. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know why. Shootings, stabbings, vehicle attacks - when the cause is just "someone went crazy" - are tragic but not really notable. If they were targeting Cree for specific reasons we can revisit. Also meh article. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but reluctantly. I have a hard time thinking about this, given mass shootings and stabbings are pretty common worldwide, but rarely gets into ITN especially once it comes to Anglophone countries. Even my country's media has covered this just once as of now. But this is atypical for a mass stabbing and definitely a big news. RIP to the victims, and I hope this ends soon. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose everyday occurence in the united states, i remember hearing a statistic that more people die in chicago every night than during any of the recent mass shootings. not to mention that in this particular stabbing spree the stabbings didn't all occur at the same spot/at the same time Daikido (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok but you do realize that Canada is a sovereign nation north of the United States right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * …did you even read the headline? The Kip (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the US have to do this? Canada is a different country, in case you didn't know. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Trout delivered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Definitely not normal up here in Canada. Multiple emergency alerts have gone off over the past few hours. (Full disclosure: I live in Alberta.) Kurtis (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Kurtis, Canadian here, this meets the criterion in addition to being covered internationally. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – In second-day coverage, still looking for assailants. AP, BBC, Reuters – Sca (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support Not normally a big proponent of attacks in general being posted, but this is certainly a noteworthy one, especially given the panic caused and the widespread nature of the attacks. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting update I have changed the blurb to 18 injured per latest figures. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 00:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – One assailant, Damien Sanderson, found dead. His brother, Myles Sanderson, remains on the run.    – Sca (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - AP Stylebook forbids the use of the word "spree" paired with any crime. In this particular case, I agree that "stabbing spree" is poor word choice and insensitive. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The second suspect was arrested and then he stabbed himself to death. Do we need to update the blurb? --M asem  (t) 03:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A numerical update is probably in order. Rumour exaggeration is definitely not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Repost Should not have been removed, major news and a possible hate crime. Just because the Queens announcement is so long doesn’t mean we should remove a mass stabbing. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 12:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that the oldest item will scroll off. It happens all the time. Please tell TFA and DYK to consistently occupy more space on the left side of MainPage. Every now and then, they become short on the left side, then ITN and SA/OTD will be forced to trim off an item or two to maintain left-right balance on MainPage. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Cyrus Mistry

 * blurb Former head of a Major global MNC that owned Jag/landrover and corus Steel. (totally a false flag, but thats besides the Point).37.252.81.124 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs a bit of ref improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb mediocre article, I'd expect better for someone "significant enough" for a blurb. Died at 54 in a car accident though. Really depends if his death becomes a story or not. If it's just "Oh, Cyrus died" then RD is fine --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Cyrus and Jehangir. And not just died. Killed by a speeding gynecologist (allegedly) who married the latter's brother. It has legs, Legs. But I'll need to see a decent proposal first. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD till article quality is improved article subject doesn't have a transformative impact on the corporate world or the Indian economy. Tube·of·Light 05:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Simply nowhere near the normal notability threshold that we apply for death blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's focus the discussion on this as a regular RD nom. There is no proposed blurb to oppose. --PFHLai (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see at least 5 {CN} tags across the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tagging. I have filled all the CN tags. Please have a look at your convenience. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new refs, Ktin. Upon review, I have found two issues with this wikibio. First, the career section seems to have more materials on the legal procedures related to his dismissal from Tata than what he did while he was still working for Tata. More info on his achievements would be good. Secondly, Earwig found a bit too much similarity. Some revising may be in order. --PFHLai (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, while I did not work on this article (having been occupied with a few other things), I think the Earwig bit might be a case of reverse Copyvio -- please see here. I will try edit this later today, but, have family visiting and might not be able to get to this. Let's see. Ktin (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Ktin. Shame on livemint.com. -- PFHLai (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jeff German

 * I think his article should be expanded first, but once that's done, I wouldn't be opposed to it. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As there are no references pre-death, I think WP:1E is in play here. We do have specific notability requirements for journalists, which the subject does not appear to meet.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Kohler Jr.

 * No more time to work on this at the moment but citations needed only for the first paragraph of "Business career" - Dumelow (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment a couple cites needed. Beyond that this reads like a PR release. Not so grossly promotional that it's obvious. But the general tone is what I would expect from a flack. Not sure it's enough to justify an oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've now cited this section (and the first paragraph on golf courses), stripping out some PR-sounding material in each - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sterling Lord

 * Support Honestly, when Bloom6132 is the nom, I don't know why I even bother checking. Their nominations are always squared away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready. Did some additional copyediting; short but meets minimum standards, referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Serena Williams retires

 * Support. Retirement of a very prominent top athlete. Sports related retirements of top athletes and teams have also been posted before (eg. Alex Ferguson). Carter00000 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've never supported a nomination that addresses the retirement of an athlete, no matter how famed. It's simply another stage in Serena Williams' career. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - don't get me wrong, Serena is a huge star and role model for many, and watching her over the years has been an amazing experience. But like Alsor, I just think we shouldn't blurb any sporting retirement, it just opens the floodgates for numerous similar "retirement of GOAT" claims in the future. Note the debate about Tom Brady, also a clear GOAT, whom we also didn't post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posting Sachin Tendulkar and Alex Ferguson were mistakes not to be repeated --LaserLegs (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the situation with Tom Brady showed us, nope, since this can be reversed at any time. --M asem (t) 10:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose She hasn't even explicitly said that was her last match. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Of interest mainly to a niche audience, though quite a large one. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Drummie Zeb

 * Oppose I don't think he's notable enough. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An AfD candidate, @InvadingInvader? --PFHLai (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as of writing, but I won't contest his AfD. I'd try a PROD first if I wanted to delete it. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood; regardless, I'm not sure if his article's of a sufficient quality. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Cheers. Wime  Pocy  16:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not going to post this, but I don't think it would fail a deletion discussion and it's perfectly well sourced. So marked Ready. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Eckersley (computer scientist)

 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Skynxnex (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2 CN tags, then good to go.  Spencer T• C 00:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Died at a young age but it is not mentioned anywhere in the article why and how. Gotitbro (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've resolved the citation needed issues. As for the cause of death, I've added that he was diagnosed with cancer shortly before his death. There are trustworthy but not Wikipedia-reliable sources that confirm that he died from pre-op complications relating to a cancer-related procedure, but nothing citeable at this point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is adequate and ready to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zenno Rob Roy

 * Support. It looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianHObradors (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2022 September 2 (UTC)
 * Support no issues. Good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Drake

 * Not ready. Unfortunately there's a lot of unreferenced material and an orange-tagged section. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably worth considering for full blurb. 2A02:2F0E:DD0C:DD00:FDBD:9A81:31F4:D922 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A well known scientist, but nowhere near blurb level IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD as very prominent astronomer, but not blurb-worthy. Review of the old orange tags justified their removal, which I did.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD in principle once the missing citations are added. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently 10+ {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready I've expanded his early life and career sections and added references. I'm certain he has more honours/awards than those listed so that section can probably be expanded. But regardless, the article is now ready to post. Polyamorph (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please give everyone DYK credits? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yang Yongsong

 * I've added links from other articles, so the article is no longer an orphan. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio currently has 305 words of prose and (barely) long enough to qualify. (Any more things to write about him?) Footnotes can be found in expected spots (AGF'ing all non-English sources). Formatting looks fine. Earwig found no problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage, essentially a CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 00:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have expanded a little but exhausted the sources available - Dumelow (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

 * I'm not sure about this one. I feel like an attempted assassination should meet a certain threshold in order to be approved for the main page&mdash;specifically, that it results in actual injury for the targeted individual. I'm not sure that there is anything significant enough about this particular attack that merits a full blurb, seeing as the shooter didn't even manage to fire a single bullet. Kurtis (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I remember we posted the Caracas drone attack despite no injury to the supposed target and not even being sure if it was an assassination attempt or not. Kingsif (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. (Also&mdash;and I mean this in the nicest way possible&mdash;you were the story's nominator and you don't remember how it closed? 🤨) I'm still undecided as to whether or not I support putting this on the main page. Obviously, an attempted assassination of a former world leader (and actually the current Argentine VP) is newsworthy, but I just don't know that it's ITN blurb-worthy. Kurtis (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh... alright, support. The subsequent supporters have swayed me, and the only reason I was hesitant to begin with is the fact that the assassination was unsuccessful. If failed attempts can still be blurb-worthy, why should I stand against this one? Kurtis (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * which unsuccessful ones have been posted? Generally we don't post if it's unsuccessful, per the Maduro example cited below. The given list List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts, has numerous recent examples, almost none of which were posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will confess, here and now, that I don't feel strongly about this one either way. My support is mostly "if everyone else thinks failed assassination attempts are blurb-worthy, I won't stand in their way." I personally feel like an attempted assassination of a current or former world leader should at least result in an injury before it is given its own blurb (barring exceptional circumstances), but because it seemed more and more like a minority opinion and it's not something I feel particularly strongly about, I decided to support. I was deferring to what seemed like community consensus the last time I checked in. Kurtis (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Previous assassination attempts on politicians in high positions have been posted in ITN, even when they are unsuccessful (eg. Mohamed Nasheed) Carter00000 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, a discussion back in November 2021 said the exact opposite. The attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister was not posted to ITN and part of the reasoning was because attempted assassinations were not posted at ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support We are talking about an attempt to kill the vice-president and former president of a big country, and also an idol of the masses for what she represents for Kirchnerism and Peronism. She is undoubtedly one of the most relevant politicians of the country, whose incident has shaken the Argentinean society. In fact, the president treated it as the most serious incident since the restoration of democracy. I’m sure, and although I don’t like comparisons, that if it were a lower level politician from an Anglo-Saxon country, there would have been almost an automatic blurb. And if it were Kamala Harris, for example, I would support him without hesitation. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only necessary that the Aftermath section has more sources and the article will be ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, does not happen often and it'll be really stupid if we only post successful assassinations. Banedon (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts --LaserLegs (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Maduro not posted --LaserLegs (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was questions if the attack against Maduro was staged or not. There does not appear to be that question here. M asem (t) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - concerns with Maduro's attempted assassination were that it was an unverifiable false flag attack. This is not the case here. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment if this were staged, are we sure the truth would emerge? This is always a question with "attempts" as they tend to be politically helpful. That said, this newly created article is very good and that should weigh heavily.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;Should we mention the fact that the would-be assassin is a Brazilian national in the blurb? I hope doing so doesn't give the impression that the government of Brazil was in any way involved. Kurtis (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. EditMaker Me (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Strongly disagree with this. The perpetrator is Brazilian-born but with an Argentine mother, and has lived in Argentina since he came to the country as a child in 1993. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – An event that didn't happen. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Doesn't seem like a big story, of course there are people who want to assassinate politicians, but it's only really newsworthy if they're successful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support - assailant pulled a gun at point blank range and the gun jammed. This isn't a routine case where intelligence authorities detected a conspiracy beforehand and arrested the plotters, the subject is only alive due to luck Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Millions of people worldwide weren't killed on Sept. 3. -- Sca (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The vast people are not notable at all, certainly not nation-leading politicians, and nobody has tried to kill them. This is a ridiculous argument Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Millions of notable people worldwide, including leading politicians, weren't killed on Sept. 3. -- Sca (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ronald Reagan was not assassinated in 1981. Would we not have posted the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan? Obviously Wikipedia didn't exist back then, but let's pretend it did for the sake of argument. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ms. Fernández de Kirchner isn't president of the U.S. Justifiable or not, that's the distinction in terms of significance. -- Sca (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different argument than "lots of people weren't killed", though. If your point is "this attempted assassination is less significant than other attempted assassinations that might be reasonable to post", make that argument rather than some completely unrelated one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my argument. -- Sca (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento seems like a better comparison to this attempted assassination than the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Worldwide news with significant impact. Furthermore posting only successful assassinations would set a poor precedent, as well as the fact the only reason this attempt was unsuccessful seems to be pure luck (that the gun happened to malfunction upon the trigger being pulled).Abcmaxx (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. We don't customarily post non-events. Long term significance is highly doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She does have an interesting signature, though. -- Sca (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, although a better blurb might help - "Vice-President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner survives an assassination attempt", perhaps. Sca's comparison with Ronald Reagan largely betrays the persistent US-centricity of this site. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the president of a global superpower isn't the same as the vice president of a regional non-power? Seems reasonable to draw such comparisons. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with the above that calling a guy born in Brazil to an Argentine woman, who moved to Argentina at age 6 and lived there for the last 30 years a "Brazilian man" is technically accurate but a bit disingenuous and should be dropped from the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also WP:UNDUE as well, most RS have not make any relevant connection between the man's nationality and origins and his motive to assassinate the Argentinian vicepresident -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 20:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. That’s exactly what was done on Portuguese Wikipedia. He has lived in Argentina for almost 30 years now, and he is 35 years-old. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I initially people thought the man may be linked to Bolsonaro given his admiration and comments regarding armed coups. Also complex history of Argentina–Brazil relations may have played a part. It was only later that it transpired the man's link to Brazil were overstated; more important would be his political beliefs and potential links to neo-nazi groups. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nothing actually happened. According to the article there's even doubt as to whether he pulled the trigger. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can hear the sound of the trigger being pulled. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If this happened to a U.S. VP or former president this would've been posted, no debate. The fact that an attempted assassination, shot or not, of not only the incumbent VP of Argentine but a former president is extremely rare. Plus this event is gaining worldwide coverage, the article is in good shape and like I said, rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the comparisons with the US are bizzare to say the least. By that level we would only ever post about the US, India, or China. We are not talking about a micro-nation either, Argentina is the eighth-largest country in the world, with a 50m population and clearly a regional power. Either way its a sovereign nation and attempt to assasinate anyone in power is notable, especially as we live in globally connected world. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose — An attempted assassination of the vice president of Argentina is hardly notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you missed that she is a former president. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added “former President” in the blurb. ArionEstar (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per User:TompaDompa. Curious to know whether this is a copycat of Shinzo Abe's assassination or for what other reason(s). - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it was a clear non-event. She was not killed, right, but she was not injured either, nobody else was killed or injured by collateral damage. There are no consequences in the larger political world either, beyond the criticisms that were to be expected. The government blames the "hate speech" (AKA criticism) from the press and the other political parties, but that's what they have been doing since 2019. They may try to make bills to silence the "hate speech" (AKA criticism), but they won't get them approved because they lack the numbers in both houses of the Congress... as it has been since 2019. And so far, those seem to be the actions of just a lone guy, not an organization (new or old) starting a spree of terrorist attacks. Cambalachero (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's no there there.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: In the past, it was determined attempted assassinations are NEVER posted. Only assassinations (meaning they were killed) are posted. This discussion occurred back in November 2021 with the attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister from a drone strike. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "attempted assassinations are NEVER posted" couldn't be further from the truth - if you look at the past few months alone Salman Rushdie was posted despite only being hospitalised in critical condition and Shinzo Abe was posted on the notability of the event alone, before he was confirmed to have not survived. I'll admit there is a difference that these two examples actually sustained injuries, but it's just plain misleading to say attempted assassinations are not posted. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. So now we have what appears to be two different discussions that per se, set a the precedent in the opposite way. One saying they are never posted and one showing they have been posted. Maybe a RfC talk page discussion should be used to sort that out because it seemed fairly clear back in November 2021 that attempted assassinations aren’t ITN worthy. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think some commonsense needs to be applied here. There have been comparisons made to the attack on President Reagan in 1981. In that incident, four people were shot, two critically, one of those being Mr. Reagan. If Ms. de Kirchner and/or others had been seriously injured, I'd probably have supported. But this really is a bit of a non-event. A close call to be sure. But in the end, nobody was hurt, and the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * “the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant”. That’s just a speculation. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. But I believe it is a reasonable speculation based on what we know at the moment. And since we are not discussing the notability of the event at AfD, but rather whether or not to promote the article at ITN, it is a perfectly permissible criteria to look at. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Argentina is not a strong democracy. This may have further consequences to the country as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodRabelo7 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose She wasn’t killed or seriously injured. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Assassination attempt on former president and current VP of a G20 country. If this is not worth posting, I don't know what is. For those saying it's a non-event: the crowds gathering on Plaza de Mayo surely disagreed. Article is in good shape. Khuft (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "If this is not worth posting, I don't know what is" - lots of stories are worth posting, but as evidenced above, we've established that attempted assassinations (especially where no injuries sustained) are not in general worth posting. They are simply too commonplace, and it's silly to make value judgements about which are more important than others, without a WP:CRYSTALBALL. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, making judgments of which events are more notable than others is the bread and butter of ITN, isn't it? I would argue as follows: notability springs from the fact that we're talking about a former leader and current major political figure of a G20 country, not any country. (Yes, G20 is arbitrary, but is at least broader than the very Western-focused G7, while not too broad). It has made top headlines in major publications around the world (an assassination attempt in a minor country would likely not generate such amount of coverage). It has lead to protests in the nation's capital city. Yes, thankfully Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was not injured - though I'm not sure how this really matters in this instance (nor to what extent it has been "established" than an injury was needed for an assassination attempt to be posted - I would rather have argued that the resonance it gets in the press makes it notable or not, not whether Ms Kirchner's little toe was hurt during the assassination attempt). Anyway, my two cents on the matter. Khuft (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s exactly the point. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because she wasn't injured & there's no indication of a conspiracy or the suspect being part of a terrorist group or having acted on the orders of any government or political party. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's actually a good thing there is nothing to post here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As other users pointed out, we posted the assassination attempt on Salman Rushdie and Shinzo Abe's assassination when it initially looked like he was just in critical condition. As there is now precedent to posting assassination attempt on public figures, I don't see why not. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a full precedent as there have been instances where attempted assassinations were not posted. One back in November 2021 was the Attempted assassination of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi (Iraqi PM), which was not posted with one reason being attempted assassinations aren’t posted to ITN. ITN unfortunately does not have any precedents for this topic, but rather conflicting discussions and decisions. Honestly, posted or not, we need an RfC to set a precedent on that topic just because we have very conflicting discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not one drop of blood (nor enough fear to effect a resignation). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – A gun in her face, trigger pulled, that must've been extremely traumatic. But more important for our purposes, the article is looking very good! Would be a great article to feature with a blurb. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggest Close This discussion has now been open for going on three days. I think we can safely state that a consensus to post is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose If Kamala Harris we’re to have an assassinaion attempt, I’m not so sure it would be posted. This isn’t really breaking headlines either. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support There is a lot more to this than an anglophone perspective can give, and anyone who is going "It's the VP" doesn't understand how the power really lies with her, not the president. This is a big deal, not a simple attempted assassination of some do-nothing VP. Hi, I'm Frederal Say Hi 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I just don't understand why we have a "rule" that an assassination attempt must be successful in order to be posted. This is in the news, internationally, and it's of interest to readers per the page views, and the quality is sufficient. I see no reason not to post. Levivich 17:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am sad I found some of the arguments above really offensive and US-centric. What a shame. 7szz (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of people not understanding Argentine politics, and who is really in charge. As I said above, this is not a do-nothing VP, like most people think of when they thing of "Vice President". Frederal Say Hi 21:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a similar situation when Néstor Kirchner died (ex-president, and formally just a deputy at the time), but people understood he was the "real power" just fine, and the article was posted without much problem. But there is a key difference here: as Cristina has not died, the political landscape of Argentina right now is exactly the same as some days ago, before this guy did this. If a similar situation took place with Joe Biden (some nuthead places a gun at gunpoint, fails to shoot, and is immediately subdued and captured without any harm done to anyone) the same criteria would be used. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope so. 7szz (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone were to do what happened to CFK, to Biden, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether or not this would be ITN because it would be a WP:SNOW support. No one would question that. The fact that a gun was pointed directly in her face would immediately tip the scales if this were Biden. I think we all agree that assassination plots that don't get carried out wouldn't warrant inclusion, but this is not that. She's only alive because something went wrong on the assassin's side. It wasn't stopped, it failed. If anything, to me, the fact that the gun was held directly in her face and nothing happened raises the significance of this as well. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is precisely an assassination plot that didn't get carried out. It wasn't stopped, it failed. Same as Biden's repeated attempts to disarm hate criminals without touching them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you see the gun in her face? The plot was carried out, the assassination itself failed. The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot is "plot" that wasn't carried out. But I think "bringing the gun and pointing it in the face of the target, and pulling the trigger" is executing the plot, even if the gun then fails to fire. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - non-event. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-closing comment It does look like lasting consequences, 2 people now arrested BBC News Abcmaxx (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Ehrenreich

 * Support - well-known scholar and author in certain academic fields. Article seems to be in okay shape.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support what the tree said. Levivich 18:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A prolific academic, also noted as the author of at least two books with considerable mainstream success. Article appears in good shape. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is a C-class biography in good shape. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the bibliography need to be referenced? DatGuyTalkContribs 08:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Either by sources or by IBN. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment bibliography should have sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. No opposition for article quality has been made, so no treshold. More waiting RD=lowering quality of this ITN fact. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many bullet-points with no footnotes. Please add more REFs. Or prune off the unverified. --PFHLai (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is "IBN" Alsoriano97 mentions? WP:IBN? How is an author's biography supposed to be sourced" (WP:BIOGRAPHY), ISBN only? Critical acclaim? Self-published website OK ? -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a little something to help verify the info in each bullet-point, at least that the book exists and the title is correct. ISBN works. Footnotes with a link to a book review work, too. --PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I've added isbns for all the books and linked all of the essays except for one that I cannot find. It's real, other sources do cite it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new sources, @Muboshgu. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Esther Cooper Jackson

 * Needs a bit of ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * References are now improved. Thriley (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good and a worthwhile RD. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article much improved, good citations for article of its size. Marking as ready. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  16:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ravil Maganov

 * Comment – Fairly widely covered, but significance seems uncertain. – Sca (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per the template above, Recent deaths of any person... with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC). There's a community consensus that these sorts of things are significant enough to be recent deaths; this is not the proper place to litigate disagreements with well-established community consensus. The only question we should be considering here is quality and whether it is up-to-date; I would like to see the article updated before supporting it. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article a little bit.Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is quite stub-like. The largest section is about his death, the cause of death does seem to be the main story here. Without additional biographical information it's not really suitable for RD at this time. Polyamorph (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. the Russian language article  has more biographical information which could help with expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I added everything I could find in English-language newspapers. Hopefully, somebody who speaks better Russian than me can add something from Russian sources. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The article is a bit slim, but is not obviously stub-like any more. Notable as a businessman as well as a likely murder victim. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Missing a reference for his date of birth. Stephen 01:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Place of birth, too. Same sentence. -- PFHLai (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Roy

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Turnbull

 * Support Terrible news to hear, RIP XxLuckyCxX (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support High quality long and cited article Abcmaxx (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article meets the standard. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) UN report on Uyghur genocide

 * Support -- In the news and important. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Very notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have created a brief stub for the report: OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. This is a major report that should have a standalone article. The name is a bit of a mouthful, perhaps it should be shortened? Thriley (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe simply "OHCHR Assessment of the status of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region"? Still a mouthful... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe something as "2022 OHCHR Assessment on the Uyghur in China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.136.173 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose in relation to notability and timeframe.The conclusion of the report explicitly states that the cited actions are in relation to the application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies, within the timeframe of "2017 to 2019". Given that events should be "current, and not stale relative to other events", such a timeframe would preclude it's inclusion in ITN.


 * In terms of general notability, the report itself also does not present any new information which has not been previously alleged by other entities.


 * The scope and tone of the report is also mild, with OCHR only raising the possibility of continued issues outside of counterterrorism operations, with no firm allegations outside of this scope ("available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent...").


 * Carter00000 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The event here is the publication of their report, not necessarily the actions covered by the report. The Kip (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The UN doesn’t exactly outright accuse nation-states of genocide very often, let alone a Security Council member. The Kip (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The UN hasn't accused anyone of "genocide". The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either. The UN has only alleged that human rights violations may have been committed during counterterrorism operations, and have been careful to only suggest the possibility, not outright allegations. It should be noted that human rights violations seem to be common when it comes to counterterrorism operations by nation states (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, CIA Black Sites) Carter00000 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The full quote is "Serious human rights violations have been committed in [Xinjiang] in the context of the government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies" . <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bolded target article has only a short section on this and the newly created article is a stub.Chaosquo (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report makes no mention of "genocide".Carter00000 (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the editors have opted to use the common language of the event has been referred to by RSes, but because I did not see genocide in relation to the UN report, I did not use that term in the blurb. M asem (t) 09:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions. Carter00000 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * i mean, i agree that we should not really be calling it genocide yet because no international court has accused them of it, but that is what editors on that page have gone with citing a predominance of that language in RSes. Our blurb and its visible text (hiding the linked page title) stays clear of the language, which avoid the problem. M asem  (t) 13:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending expansion of OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China, although the document uses the wording "may constitute" rather than accusing unambiguously. Brandmeistertalk  09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the update to the article is substantial enough to merit blurbing, which might also indicate that this report doesn't have that much baring on our understanding of the genocide (or people's views on it). The stub is definitely not ready for posting. As it is now, I wouldn't support it yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a paragraph of new details added under the Reactions section. That is comparable to other expected updates for other articles, though obviously could be expanded further. this is not a simple one sentence addition. M asem (t) 10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that a paragraph is a lot better than what we usually see for ITN submissions like this! It's a very solid edit! I may be too demanding for ITN, but I am also not actively opposing the nomination. The status of the stub remains a bit of an open question here either way. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment where is the update? The UN straight up accusing China of COH seems a relevant thing to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Section 7.1. Satisfactory to me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – An allegation, however likely it may seem, usually isn't definite enough for a blurb. Also, needs more sources. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added more sources. But technically the ITRN source line only requires one source as to validate the item reported. It us not meant to show that the news item is widely reported (something a Google can do). M asem (t) 13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The UN accusing a nation state of conducting crimes against humanity on a massive scale is rare, exceptional, and utterly newsworthy. The article is well-sourced and high quality. The update is in the page, so I think we are good to go. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 12:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The report is not a court, so cannot definitively find that crimes against humanity have been committed - 'may amount to' is the strongest finding they could have made. Unless a trial ever happens (looks unlikely) this is the closest we're ever going to get to official confirmation that China has committed crimes against humanity. It would be good to have a more substantial update at Uyghur_genocide, but what's there does meet our minimum requirements already (and is better than the stub mentioned above). The rest of the article is detailed and very well referenced. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'm not one for blurbing reports as a whole, but this is a fairly under-reported crisis and one of great concern. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Qualifying my previous comment now to say I support Altblurb I. Other blurbs suggest a more wishy-washy tone to the report with "may have" or "may constitute". Alt I explains the situation best. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per The Kip and Modest Genius. Highly significant event. EditMaker Me (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support for altblurb 2. A rare report for the UN; also, this blurb places the content in more clear terms. 142.116.194.246 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose alt blurb III. Given that the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all, I propose that we update and link to the article Terrorism_in_China (not yet updated, will update if there is consensus to use the article), which would seem to be a more accurate fit for the scope of the report, without exaggerating or sensationalizing the subject, and avoiding WP: SYNTH.
 * I have used the phrase "human rights violations" which appears frequently in the report, omitting the phrase "crimes against humanity", as the phrase only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report, so inclusion of the phrase would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SENSATIONALISM. It should also be noted that the usage of the phrase is presented as a possibility, rather than a direct allegation. Carter00000 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "crimes against humanity" only appears once, but as the conclusion, arguably the most important part of the report. It certainly doesn't constitute sensationalism, and if anything, a blurb downplaying both that and the targeting of the Uyghur people as outlined in the report is fundamentally lacking. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, for the record it appears twice, in the introduction as well. The Kip (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the phrase "crimes against humanity" appears twice in the report, but only once "in relation to the subject in the report" as I mentioned in my original comment. In the introduction, it only appears as part of a description for a criteria used for assessment, and is not directly applied to the subject in question. Carter00000 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been the case since its inception, the Uyghur genocide article is the article that describes the human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. The article title reflects consensus that has been re-affirmed in multiple requested move discussions. If the objection at ITN is simply about the article title, it is extremely misguided. Any appropriate blurb will link to the article that describes the extremely well-documented human rights abuses in the region.
 * Altblurb 3 takes the affirmative stance that all of the abuses mentioned in the report are actually just counter-terrorism operations, which would be risible if it weren't so morose. Moreover, altblurb 3 doesn't appear to link to any article that actually meets this report. And that the U.N. has come out and said something for which there exists broad scholarly consensus is in no way sensationalist nor undue weight. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the report explicitly states its findings are "in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies" (Pg.45, Paragraph 143). Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that the report makes  no  references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all. Hence, my intention with my previous proposal was to suggest a blurbed article which more accurately reflects this scope, rather then link to a article which may of potentially less relevance. Carter00000 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * There is a difference between counter-extremism and counter-terrorism, especially when having a large family is considered to be "religious extremism".
 * At the risk of repeating myself, the article titled Uyghur genocide is about—and has always been about—the series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang; there is no article that is possibly more relevant to an ITN blurb relating to the wanton abuses taken against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, broadly construed. If you look back at the earliest versions of the page after I moved it to the mainspace, this is painfully evident. What you are fundamentally objecting to is the title of that article, but that title has been repeatedly affirmed by the community across several move discussions and is the current community consensus.
 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my concern is with the scope of the report matching the article within the blurb. I have not mentioned or stated any views on the title of the original article. Carter00000 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * our article likely extends well past the bounds of the report, but not by much...while the report is entirely bounded by the article. the UN report is clearly using careful language but it is absolutely focused on the same accusations made by others documented at the genocide article. M asem (t) 16:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, your comment summarizes my concerns. If you look at the article which I suggested (Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang), the scope of it extends less from the bounds of the report, and does not allege wrongdoing not mentioned in the report (genocide). I understand that the UN is using careful language, but the principles of WP is to reflect a source as accurately and precisely as possible. Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * but that article is far too broad... the report only is for events from 2014 to 2017, which every other RS pretty much refers to as the Uyghur genocide. We know the UN is goodies on contentious language but as others have said here, it would be wrong to soften what the topic is about. M asem (t) 16:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please only have one bolded !vote at once; it's confusing to read when there are multiple. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support Very significant. X-Editor (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support unprecedented move really and theres bound to be consequences for the entire globe further to this. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and just like that, when it's busy attacking America's enemies, the UN is all of a sudden "credible"...--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:59D9:E24F:ADF:41E8 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some posts above smack of a "Righting Great Wrongs" campaign. Leaning toward changing my 'comment' above back to my original vote of oppose. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this? For the benefit of the few remaining editors that aren't already aware that your participation here is strictly pointy, you felt the need to make a formal announcement?  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 1 as it is the closest to what the report says (page 3; PDF page 5). A former UN official going to Xinjiang a few months ago and, minutes before her term ended yesterday, published a paper recognizing the genocide the organization has rarely spoken about (potentially outright ignoring it) is big news. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 20:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Genocides deserve attention. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tenatively support Alt1, Oppose Alt3 Definitely a notable story, especially given China's position on the UNSC. However, "UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang" needs to be expanded before it can be posted since it should share the "main article" designation with Uyghur genocide. As for the blurbs, Alt1 is the best for being the most concise, actually links to the report in question, and, as other users pointed out, it closely aligns with what the report says. I oppose Alt3 because, while the poster meant well, I feel it downplays the assertions way too much to the point of being unnecessarily politically correct (and I'm one of those people that almost never complains about that sort of thing). Mount Patagonia  (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support ALT2 Certainly a newsworthy story, and ALT2 is definitely the best of the bunch, as it is the most straightforward. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ALT1 also works well in this regard, so I suppose this is a joint endorsement. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. There is consensus to post, although not yet consensus for a specific blurb. I've posted the following as a hopefully acceptable synthesis of the various proposed blurbs: "The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, including violence against the Uyghur people." Discussion about optimizing the blurb may continue here.  Sandstein   06:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Current blurb is fine with me, thanks. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, the new UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang article is looking great and is a great example of something to feature on the front page! Shouldn't that be the bolded article here? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Request Pull as the posting is premature, and has not received the required consensus on content and procedure. As per posting editor Sandstein's own comment accompanying the post, no consensus has been reached on the content of the blurb. Sandstein has synthesized and posted a blurb unilaterally, which is contrary to normal ITN policy. Carter00000 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The current blurb is a problem. Xinjiang and most Uyghur people are part of China; it makes little sense to say that "China" may have committed crimes against them. The word "China" in the blurb should be replaced by "the Chinese government". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its a fair inference that China here means the PRC govt, and not the country itself, given that this a UN report. M asem (t) 08:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the interest of conciseness, I think it can be assumed to be understood that the Chinese state is meant.  Sandstein   08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The only person opposing this is you. Seems like consensus to me. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 I see a number of "oppose" entries in the comments above. Furthermore, both the posting editor and other editors participating in the conversation seem to agree that the blurb content has not reached the necessary level of consensus. Indeed, I see concerns being raised in the previous comment to this one. Carter00000 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the only other oppose was an ip using it as a political statement which cant be acted on. and we dont require unanimous agreement, just a consensus which there is clear support for. M asem (t) 10:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of supports do not specify a blurb preference, which I believe should be taken to assume a preference for the original blurb. I don't know when alt blurbs 2/3 emerged, but this changes the blurb subject from the UN to the OHCHR. This is a softening of the statement that was not necessarily endorsed.   GreatCaesarsGhost   10:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we improve the blurb? x ... may have ... y ?? Seems awfully weasel-ly; I can't see us putting up a blurb about anyone else being "accused" of something? — xaosflux  Talk 14:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is the language used by the UN and we are required to accurately reflect the source. The UN has only alleged that human rights violations may have been committed, and have been careful to only suggest the possibility, not outright allegations. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is very true...and to stress that even this wishy washy statement by the UN is the first time the body in some official capacity spoke as to the possibility of human rights violations in this situation, making it newsworthy...many govt and NGOs have said it was a crime, but the UN is different and something that could possibly be acted on. M asem (t) 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear, even as I have re-opened this, that there does not exist a consensus to pull this item from ITN, and there likely will not be one. I'm reopening solely because there is a discussion about tweaking the blurb for accuracy/neutrality.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support also, support wording of current blurb as written. Story is well covered by the media, article is of sufficient quality, and blurb accurately reflects the story at hand.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose alt blurb IV as per the discussion at ITN:ERRORS. Pinging.
 * As per my comment at ITN:ERRORS, the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. The most serious action presented in the report is "crimes against humanity", which only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report. The action is carefully presented as a possibility by the UN, rather than a direct allegation. Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".Carter00000 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Alt blurb IV is not really suitable, as Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is very clearly not the article which conveys this news - indeed, as far as I can tell it doesn't mention this story at all. It seems to me that the article relating to the actual story we're reporting is clearly UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang. It seems like quality issues with that which existed earlier have been addressed, so at a bare minimum I suggest we switch the bolded article away from Uyghur genocide and instead have that one bold. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be any quality issues with the Uyghur genocide article. I find no banners, no cn tags, the sourcing looks good, the article is comprehensive, and relevant to the story at hand.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a general article about the genocide itself, covering all events over several years. ITN typically links an article dedicated specifically about the news item which is being reported, if there is one, rather than a more general article for that story. For example, if someone is elected president we link the election article, not the individual who's been elected. If there's a major sporting final, such as UEFA Euro 2020 Final then we bold that, which covers the immediate thing we're reporting, we don't bold the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament article. In this case, the report seems to be the individual article about the newsworthy event as far as I can tell. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the article UN_Human_Rights_Office_Assessment_of_human_rights_concerns_in_Xinjiang has a background section on the existing issues. Inserting an additional background article/line in the blurb makes the blurb quite long compared to the other blurbs on ITN. Carter00000 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the report should be the bolded article - at the moment it's hidden away in a SEAOFBLUE blurb. I don't think we need to link the OHCHR article at all; just "a United Nations report" should be enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I realise there are a lot of blurbs in play already, but I've added ALT5, which isn't too much of a change from what's up there now, but changes the bolded article and includes the concision implied by PK3 above... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted that you have made the post more concise, which is good. Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide is not alleged or mentioned in the report. Carter00000 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt5: Less wording and WP:SEAOFBLUE, bolded link should be the UN report instead of the Xinjiang genocide -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 16:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt5 per above.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT5 per above. Coming here from the main page because the current blurb has SEAOFBLUE problems and bolds the wrong article (it should be report that's bolded). Levivich 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, with preference for ALT5. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb switched to ALT5. There has been a rough consensus amongst five participants above since I proposed ALT5, and it seems to satisfy some of the concerns already raised with the blurb, while also preserving the main thrust of what was already there, so I've WP:BOLDly switched to it. Obviously I am WP:INVOLVED, but I think there's a consensus to switch. If anyone really objects to this then let me know, and I can self-revert and await an independent admin re-assessment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that Alt5 states the situation better than any previous blurb proposal did. -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't love any of them, but of them think alt5 is the best. I'm not loving that we are supporting the concept of "may have done something" type reports (ala an indictment vs a conviction), but understand from above that this is an extraordinary type of finding from the UN. — xaosflux  Talk 00:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Xaosflux. I'm also dubious about posting "may have" findings, but this type of report from the UN about one of its five permanent Security Council members is a pretty big deal. Kurtis (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose blurb change per Mx. Granger. The metonymical 'China' should be replaced with the 'Chinese government' - some might argue this is inferred, but it doesn't hurt to be specific and avoid accusing 1.4 billion Chinese for the heinous crimes of their government. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support "Chinese government" instead of "China" per the report itself, which uses "Government of China" or "Government". For example, Section VIII. "Overall assessment and recommendations", on page 43 of the report: "Serious human rights violations have been committed in XUAR in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” strategies ... the Government’s stated drive against terrorism and “extremism” in XUAR ... raises concerns from the perspective of international criminal law ... The Government holds the primary duty to ensure that all laws and policies are brought into compliance with international human rights law ..." and the Recommendations section on the next page begins, "OHCHR recommends to the Government of China that it: (i) Takes prompt steps to release all individuals arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in XUAR ...". I think WP:NPOV means we use "government" as well; a subtle but meaningful distinction. Levivich 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In case it's not obvious from my comment above, I support this too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer concerned about length given how much the length blurb has been cut down, so I support changing "China" to "Chinese government" for reasons of precision. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose blurb change. Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude. Given that its already quite unusual to post a blurb on simply allegations (as noted above by Sca, Xaosflux & Kurtis), this seems to be even more of an escalation. Based on this, propose that the link to the article be removed. Carter00000 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough already. This is approaching WP:HORSEMEAT territory. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Farny 38.jpg (talk) ]]


 * This seems encyclopedic but a conclusion of "may have committed" or "may constitute" is not very definitive and seems a bit weak for posting a blurb; the main subject is Uyghur genocide which should probably be treated similarly to the climate crisis and listed as a disaster on Portal:Current events. When something more impactful from climate change (e.g. the European heatwaves this summer) or a similar report comes out though, it tends not to get blurbed. This appears to be a troubling inconsistency. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned thus above, in that while the UN statement is not a strong one, it is the first official statement critical of China's actions re Uyghur, after most other countries have derided China already for that. That is the news, not the conclusions of the report.  And we have definitely posted major climate change reports before, as well as when the heatwaves first hit Europe. M asem  (t) 12:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the notability is based simply on being the 1st UN report on the subject and not its conclusions as you wrote, the blurb should be quite different and something along the lines of simply "The UN released its 1st report on Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang, China" or something like that. And it probably would not meet notability for posting then in my opinion, because I bet there are tons of 1st reports issued by the UN which pass by without notice. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Request further discussion, given the concerns that have been raised during throughout this ITN nomination. In addition to being discussed at ITN, the nomination was also discussed at ITN:ERRORS, with the target article also being discussed at the same time at DYK.


 * Similar to the previous comment by Indefensible, a number of editors have raised concerns on the validity of posting this blurb and whether it meets the standards for notability for posting at ITN. In general, concerns has been raised (with some remaining unresolved) on (1) The fact that language used in the report only represents allegations and not firm facts (Brandmeister, Sca, xaosflux, Martindo), (2) That the intent behind the posting may constitute WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or bias (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Brandmeister) and (3) The labeling of "China' vs "Chinese Government" (Kiril Simeonovski, Mx. Granger, Chaosquo, Red-tailed hawk, Andrew).


 * On procedural matters, it should be noted that Sandstein who posted the blurb suggested that consensus had not been reached on the content of the blurb, but were posting the blurb anyway in spite of the incomplete consensus, which seems to clearly be against standard ITN procedure. Usually, consensus on the content of the blurb is required to be posted, not being first and amended after. Given that there are time limits associated the "staleness" of a blurb, this abnormally expedited posting and disregarding of common practice is especially concerning.


 * Furthermore, Waltcip's closure of the nomination after the blurb posting, while discussion on the blurb content was still ongoing is also of concern, especially since it was something suggested to continue by Sandstein. The closure caused the discussion to become fragmented, having to continue at ITN:ERRORS. The close was later reversed by Waltcip after objections from multiple editors (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Chaosquo, Pawnkingthree), further validating that the nomination should not have been closed.


 * Given the amount of objections to the exact content and the procedural flaws, I feel further discussion on the issues would be of benefit. Carter00000 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you continue to bludgeon this discussion, I will go see what an independent admin has to say about your conduct. This is becoming disruptive. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging Jim Michael 2, InvadingInvader, 4me689, Red-tailed hawk & JeffUK to request their comment as they are concurrently discussing the report on an ITN related page. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * read above... you've well explained your position, consensus is against it, further arguing at this leave is beating a dead horse, particular as the blurb had been up for a few days. M asem (t) 12:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion; I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News.
 * I'm generally indifferent on how the blurb is written, but I can understand arguments that say the term "Chinese Government" should be used instead of "China" as it could pose that anyone of Chinese descent would be viable. Other than that, any of the six blurbs would work, so I'll say Support whichever blurb is most commonly agreed on. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Massacre Posting a controversial blurb while simultaneously saying that there's no consensus for it seems a remarkably rogue action but so it goes. What I notice is that not many people are reading the article in question.  That's because ITN doesn't actually drive much traffic.  Compare with the Nanjing Massacre, for example – the readership yesterday was 13K and 173K respectively.  The latter seems to have gotten over ten times the readership because it was featured on TikTok recently.  TikTok is run by a Chinese company and it's effective in drawing viewers.  ITN not so much... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Uyghun genocide article saw a bump from 1k to 20k due to that report, so yes likely ITN is working. what's popular on Tik Tok is not what is in the news, and we don't use popularity as a metric. M asem (t) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Nanjing Massacre story is in the news too – see China Daily; Rolling Stone; Newsweek.  And it's drawing more attention on Wikipedia, let alone TikTok. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if we focus on the photos, that becomes a question of their legitimacy, which would require an academic source as with any other scientific story. That type of reporting is stuff WP should not be including anywhere as it is sensationalist. M asem (t) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Noting that a [|arbitration AE request] has been opened by Red-tailed hawk on my conduct in relation to this nomination. Carter00000 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As there should be considering you’ve adamantly refused to let this go, in spite of both consensus and everyone else moving on. Get over it. The Kip (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)