Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba in January 2022
Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Suggesting updates[edit]

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

October 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology


RD: Eamonn McCabe[edit]

Article: Eamonn McCabe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: Notable sports photographer. Article a bit short but looks in good shape. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just sports; he has several works in the Nattional Portrait Gallery and other collections, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jerzy Urban[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Jerzy Urban (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, EuroNews
Credits:

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.

 Bruzaholm (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Urban served as official spokesman of the Polish Communist regime in 1981-89. Infamous for press conference after the introduction of martial law on Dec. 13, 1981, during which 100 dissidents were killed. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment a key figure in Poland. I have expanded the article a bit, ultimately it doesn't really reflect just how much he was generally loathed in Poland, even among those who secretly enjoy the satire of Nie. More references needed regarding his early life. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
probably not blurb-worthy on en-wiki, but a photo may be appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – RD only. Generally unknown outside PL. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD no blurb - former spokesperson of Polish Communist Regime CR-1-AB (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now Way too many unsourced paragraphs, including the entire "Court case for offence to John-Paul II" section. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Bosnian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Bosnian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: SNSD win a plurality of votes in the Bosnian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Bosnian general election, Denis Bećirović, Željko Komšić and Željka Cvijanović (pictured) are elected to the Presidency.
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article needs a lot more prose. Very complicated electoral system with 3x president's elected too Abcmaxx (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment – Bosnia is fairly sui generis as a political system but the elections of the three Members of the Presidency are politically more significant than the election of the House of Representatives. "Winning a plurality of votes" is fairly insignificant as Bosnia and Herzegovina is like Belgium or Lebanon, where the parties are not directly competing with each other. JackWilfred (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment agree with JackWilfred. Maybe a better blurb would highlight the 3 people that were elected to the Presidency? AltBlurb proposed. Khuft (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Much better. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As usual, the "Preliminary results" section needs prose and a section on Reactions/Aftermath needs to be added. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think there shouldn't be a picture, due to the obvious ethnic implications (we don't want to be seen as preferring one ethnic group). Curbon7 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point. Although the image can be rotated or someone can make a collage with three (which I don’t know how to do and I preferred to put the pic of the only woman). In any case, we are in days of Nobel prizes, so it would hardly stand out many days a photo of the new members of the presidency in the event that this nomination succeeds. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Bulgarian snap parliamentary election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Bulgarian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: GERB-SDS alliance (leader Boyko Borisov pictured) wins a plurality of votes in the snap Bulgarian parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): DW
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Yet another election in Bulgaria. Article needs a lot more prose. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (talk · history · tag) and Svante Pääbo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Svante Pääbo is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on extinct hominin genomes and human evolution. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Svante Pääbo is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on human evolutionary genetics.
News source(s): Reuters, CBS News, BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Davey2116 (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I guess 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is not bad as a list article, but it's a bit stubby for my liking. Pääbo's article looks good, though, so I will probably support this soon if the former is expanded a bit more :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The "Laureate" section of the Nobel article needs sources and a "Reactions" section should be added. In Pääbo article, there are tags to be fixed and sources to be added in some paragraphs. But in general both bolded articles are fine and will be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would remove the entire "unofficial possible nominees" section because this is just speculations - or at least condense it to a single-paragraph prose instead of a table with flags and all that. The laureate himself should be the sole bolded article, and it is good to go as soon as the cn tags get fixed. Tone 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Brazilian general election[edit]

Article: 2022 Brazilian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Lula (PT) wins the 1st round of the general election but has to face Bolsonaro (PL) in a 2nd round run-off. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Lula da Silva of the Workers Party wins a plurality in the Brazilian general election, and will face a runoff with incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro of the the Liberal Party.
News source(s): The Guardian, Washington Post, AP, AlJazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Heading to the 2nd round. Article in good shape. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Would it make more sense to just post the result of the run-off once it happens instead of double posting? Curbon7 (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Post the second round results. The first round results of the French presidential election wasnt posted. Only the Second round. Haris920 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The results from the first round are not ITN/R when there is a run-off. We post when the winner is known, so wait until that happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question Since this was a general election, covering also the totality of the Chamber of Deputies, parts of the Senate, the governors and state assemblies, shouldn't we at least post the results of the election to the Chamber of Deputies? The presidential election can then be posted on 30. October. Article wouldn't be ready yet - results of the legislative part of the elections hasn't been updated yet. Khuft (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Wait for the result of the run off. Then we can post the president and any legislative information relevant at that time.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nominator comment the ongoing nomination was closed and opposed as it was said that first round should be posted as a blurb. Now this nomination is being opposed too which I find inconsistent; in that case surely the ongoing nomination should be re-considered. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neither of those things is appropriate. It is not "ongoing" in the usual sense, where there are daily updates to post. This is just a two-part election, and we'll post the result once the second part is complete.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually I would agree, however: most elections do not have daily political violence in the lead up nor the real possibility of an armed coup. Furthermore most elections do not have 156 million eligible voters spanning a large percentage of a whole continent. If anything this result will increase the amount of incidents in between rounds. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a valid point, but would those day-to-day events be significant enough to feature on the main page? Keep in mind we have ongoing wars with thousands of deaths that never make the main page. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a coup then of course that it would be considered, regardless of everything else. So far, however, the only thing we got are leaked private conversations (which were about personal preferences and not actual plans), and excessive precautions. Lula asked the US to immediately recognize the winner (a part that the article did not mention), and the US accepted, for fear of an incident similar to that of Trump... and because it's the standard procedure, anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If violence is part of the significance of this item, then it should probably be included in the blurb. It would be nice if we could quantify the violence. This does warm me up for an ongoing spot. That being said, the violence should probably be quantified better in the lede of the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Do it when the second election is held and we have a definitive winner. Otherwise, we would have to post this twice this month. And that time, please use the full names, "Lula Da Silva" and "Jair Bolsonaro", not just "Lula" and "Bolsonaro". Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I definitely agree about using full names. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – From what I've seen, Lula's success has come as a surprise, possibly significant enough in itself for a blurb – especially since Brazil is far and away South America's most populous country. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it's the other way. Polls before the election announced that Lula would win by a landslide, way ahead of Bolsonaro, and even enough to win without a runoff election. Although he won, he did so by a lower margin than expected, as Bolsonaro got more votes than expected. He was even wining when the first partial results were announced! Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh.  ;-) ... But still seems significant. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

  • Haitian authorities announce an unexpected resurgence of cholera in the country and report that at least seven people have died from the disease. (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Laurence Silberman[edit]

Article: Laurence Silberman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ, WSJ again
Credits:

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) 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support There's a CN tag in the "Academic career". But the article is in great shape. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sacheen Littlefeather[edit]

Article: Sacheen Littlefeather (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; The Hollywood Reporter; Deadline Hollywood, BBC, DW
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Her article is ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Excellently written article about an outstanding individual, it's ready to go! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: Her death has been widely covered in WP:RS and the article is in a good state. TartarTorte 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted already by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Darshan Dharmaraj[edit]

Article: Darshan Dharmaraj (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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.

 – Titanciwiki (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Article is a stub, mostly just a filmography list. Not sure this meets on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's still early. This wikibio still has quite a few days of eligibility remaining. Let's assume User:Titanciwiki and others will beef it up in the next few days. -- PFHLai (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protests[edit]

Article: Mahsa Amini protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): JPost, ABC, Time, BBC, Reuters, VOA, Iran Intl, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Event continues to evolve and receive coverage since posting on September 22. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose because the blurb fell off ITN 3 days ago, and we didn't post it to Ongoing when that happened. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Stephen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Article is being actively maintained and the ongoing protests are clearly still of an appropriate level of significantness. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support definitely ongoing and constantly in the news Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The protests are still ongoing & still in the news. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Protests are still ongoing indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 London Marathon[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 London Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Yalemzerf Yehualaw of Ethiopia becomes the youngest woman to win the London Marathon whilst Amos Kipruto (pictured) of Kenya wins the men's race. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I added this to current news portal. We posted the Berlin marathon not long ago, I believe this is just as notable. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment This is on WP:ITNR, so no comparisons to Berlin needed (which incidentally was only posted indirectly because of the world record).—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results. Abcmaxx, if an editor eventually updates the article with a race summary, could you add that updater to the nomination and mark the nomination as updated? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe[edit]

Articles: Alpinista (talk · history · tag) and Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I added this to current news portal. I know very little about horse racing, but both articles are in good shape and from their content I gather this is a notable horse winning a prestigious event. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose and snow close not ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Events that are in a class covered by ITNR but not an ITNR themselves are not immediately disqualified from being posted, just they have the usual ITNC process to review. Masem (t) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Agree. -- Sca (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There's no reason to snow close. A recurring event can't become ITN/R until it passes ITN as a regular candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Likewise I do not see why this should be closed just because it's not ITN/R. If we did that nothing would ever get posted bar a small handful of ever-diminishing number of recurring events.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, but what you cannot deny is that a sporting event is not the same as a political or scientific event. These last ones can be debated (as it has happened in so many other occasions correctly) and come to the conclusion that in spite of not being listed as ITNR, they might be notorious. But in sporting events, more simply, if they are no longer ITNR, they can hardly be ITN. I remind again that not everything that’s in the news, should be proposed here. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Disagree, all items can be ITN if they are not ITN/R, just as all items can be reasonably debated; that is a core principle of Wikipedia. We also should not be weighting different topics differently either, that us a very slippery slope and poor precedent to set. If you object to the notability of the event then please state your case why, rather than trying to force through a blanket oppose with little merit. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • ITN/R is a page designed for more easily pushing through items. You cannot use it to argue that something shouldn't be featured. Is what you intended to say simply "I do not believe this event is at the level of importance required for ITN"? If so, I would like to know more about how it compares with other horse racing events and why it's so much less important. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Alsoriano97: You have it totally backwards. Items cannot be added to ITN/R until they have been nominated and posted through ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        ok, thanks for the clarification. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality and significance. Contrary to the nomination text, most of the article is completely unreferenced and is quite short for a race that dates back to 1920. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Multiple "This section does not cite any sources" banners. Not appropriate for ITN if the article is not of sufficient quality. Not comment on significance. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The nomination should actually be for 2022 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, not the generic race page. In any event, that 2022 page is a stub, so fails on quality. I'm also not hearing arguments on why this is significant for posting.—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose What Aslor is getting at (I think) is a general consensus about how we treat sports with many top-tier events. We don't want any sport to have lots of posts simply because of a lack of consensus about which event is premier. Historical discussions have pared horse racing to four ITN/R events, while explicitly excluding very prominent races (Santa Anita, Belmont and Preakness) to keep the number down. While consensus can change, this event's absence at ITN/R is a reflection of community consensus of its relative insignificance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is circular reasoning. Again, an item doesn't get nominated for ITN/R unless it passes the significance test at ITN/C by showing it has been posted at least a couple of times. And its absence from ITN/C (and by extension ITN/R) in the past does not necessarily mean it's insignificant, but could simply be that someone who had interest in the subject matter finally came along and decided to argue for its posting. I remember in the past that we didn't have any sumo-related items on ITN/R until someone decided to step up and nominate the yokozuna promotions on ITN/C. It was interesting and unusual, and something that none of us had really considered before. We're not omniscient. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree it would be circular reasoning if I was making that argument you suggest I am. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ramzan Kadyrov[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Ramzan Kadyrov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ramzan Kadyrov joins the Russian rightwing, including Dmitry Medvedev, in advocating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ramzan Kadyrov joins the Russian right in advocating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
News source(s): CNN. Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Majority of Russian right now pressuring Putin to nuke Ukraine Johncdraper (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose on the following:
1. Cannot see the ITN/R rationale anywhere.
2. Nominated article is about an individual not an event.
3. Threats of nuclear aggression are an ongoing Russian propaganda tool since February invasion, and arguably since the start of the Cold War.
4. Covered in ongoing.
5. Lacks any significance; all talk no action.
6. Sources only mention this remark in passing, and not widely commented upon elsewhere.
Abcmaxx (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Latvian parliamentary election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Latvian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the 2022 Latvian parliamentary election, the ruling New Unity wins a minority. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Latvian parliamentary election, the ruling center-right New Unity (leader Krišjānis Kariņš pictured) wins a plurality of seats.
News source(s): bloomberg.com. euronews.com, DW, France 24
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: 97% of the votes have been counted. The center right party is victorious. Haris920 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now This is ITNR, but the article, specifically the aftermath section, will need some expansion before being posted. Also the blurb should use the term "plurality" rather than minority. Gust Justice (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support once expanded and Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Lots of stats not nearly enough prose. Only 1 sentence of aftermath. Very little background and given inflation, energy and national security crises currently ongoing in Latvia, as well as language and ethnic tensions and refugee crises due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these really need to be added to the article and their effect on the election. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support once expanded looks like the article is in the process of being improved. also prefer the alt blurb. e.b. (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support ALT1 once expanded. ALT1 is more clear of what the result actually was. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality I've added some Cn tags and there are tables that have no citation either. The "Results" section needs to have prose. This article needs one more push to be ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Brazilian general election[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2022 Brazilian general election (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
 MSN12102001 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for results and nominate them as blurb, not ongoing. a!rado (CT) 09:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Just post the results the first round results are in. I don't recall having an ongoing section for the French Presidential election which is similar to this. Haris920 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strongly disagree, this nothing like the French election. Brazil is a much larger country both in terms of population and area, therefore the gap between the two rounds is much longer. Very different circumstances of the candidates and background to this election too. Furthermore and most importantly, France did not have a president that would realistically decline to recognise the results if lost and threaten reinstate a military dictatorship. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait let's see if the 2nd round is needed first; then given the particular set of circumstances this would qualify in between the rounds to have it as ongoing. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as ongoing Unless the result of the second round is particularly close. Obviously if a candidate wins a majority in the first round, then the article should be posted per ITNR. Gust Justice (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait Until theres results, theres nothing to blurb/post; if Lula wins outright, it should just be a blurb; if a second round is needed, given the high profile of this election and the vitriol coming from the candidates and thier supporters, I think ongoing would be warrented. (this is not to say that 2 round election cycles should generally be nominated for ongoing between the votes) ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 World Rally Champions[edit]

Article: 2022 World Rally Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Kalle Rovanperä and Jonne Halttunen win the World Rally Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Kalle Rovanperä wins the World Rally Championship, becoming the youngest World Rally Champion at the age of 22.
News source(s): wrc.com, dirtfish.com, autosport.com
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Despite the season has not finished yet, I believe the story is good to post as this is a record-breaking year. Unfortunately, I could not find a good image from Commons, so it would be very appreciated if someone could upload the free work of Rovanperä. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support for the alternative blurb with notability on the age. Compared with the other FIA sanctioned top-tier racing series, the F1, Sebastian Vettel's age was above 23 when he became a champion. 86.50.68.196 (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support great quality article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not seeing any coverage in the news media (unlike F1) and so it's not "in the news". For example, Dirtfish is a driving school! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Comment – Absent from main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you want to question the ITNR-appropriateness, that's something to discuss at the talk page. --Masem (t) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Major world sports event, and more so in motorsport, just behind F1; so even if this was true then it would be more a reflection of the state of sports reporting rather than anything else. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Page looks to be in good shape, reported at BBC and Reuters. Youngest world champion is significant enough to make the blurb but I'm not sure it needs a link. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Article is looking good, nice work! Having the featured list bolded as well is a nice touch (though looking at it, I'm not big on how that list is formatted...) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support. itn/r states that "events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined", so this seems like the right time to post, rather than when the season finishes. the age record also gives us a good opportunity to link to a featured list. dying (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MOS:EGG comment In the alt blurb, the link of "the youngest World Rally Champion" is MOS:EGG when the underlying list does not show the drivers' ages. The fact that she is the youngest is already captured in 2022 World Rally Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ongoing: Hurricane Ian[edit]

Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ian is about to be displaced from the ITN box by two nominations that are getting ready to be posted. I propose that it go to ongoing while the search for survivors and remains is ongoing. The death toll has been rising quite a bit and it's expected to continue rising as searches continue pending the receding of water. NoahTalk 02:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose - Hurricane that was and isnt a hurricane anymore therefore not ongoing. These happen all the time and yes people get caught up in them... It already got a blurb which is more than what the average cyclone gets (even when it is a cat 4-5 storm hitting settled areas).✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." - We did the same thing for Idai in 2019 for the same reason, which didn't roll off as fast as this storm is going to. This is still very much in the news as it is feared that hundreds may be dead. We should keep it as an ongoing while these searches are turning up dozens of bodies a day. NoahTalk 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty sure natural disasters don't go in ongoing. Per 4amking, it isn't even a hurricane anymore so there is zero point in adding it to ongoing. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We have done it before. See no reason why we should kick an item that is clearly in the news off the ITN box. The storm itself is dead, yes, but the search for remains and survivors is very much ongoing and being covered in the news. There have been thousands of rescues and dozens of bodies uncovered each day. NoahTalk 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      For that storm, at the time it fell off ITN, it was still a storm and still causing destruction. Ian has petered out, no one is expected it to cause further damage, so it would not be required for ongoing in terms of covering the long-tail of aftermath. Masem (t) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't posted to ongoing because it was still a storm (it was only a remnant low by that time). It was posted (and survived a removal nom[2] after it had fully dissipated) because of the long-tail. Perhaps the better argument here is the scale of Idai was larger. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost:I wouldn't say that's the case. It's simply that southeastern Africa is less developed and has worse infrastructure and no way to deal with the aftermath of a storm. The days of a hurricane killing thousands in the mainland US are over because of infrastructure improvements and the government's ability to handle the aftermath of a storm. The scale of impact is similar, but less people died as a result of the US being able to evacuate and rescue people whereas that was not the case in Africa with Idai. There's still 10,000 people unaccounted for and a massive hunt for remains and survivors going on in Florida. The scale of the search operations are quite similar, however, less people will die in this case. NoahTalk 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now I'd rather just expand ITN to five blurbs for a few days than move Hurricane Ian to ongoing. I'll revisit this if it looks like three blurbs are going to be posted imminently. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Is it ongoing? Yes. Is it notable and in the news? Yes. Significant impact? Yes. Article quality? Fine. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article states "Hurricane Ian was'..." and "Dissipated: 2 October 2022". So no, it’s not longer ongoing. The fact that I will no longer be in MP is circumstantial. It is what it is as new entries have been included. That doesn’t make it any less noticeable (this is why it was posted days ago). Just do not overload the Main Page either with it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the article is for the hurricane itself, which is no longer ongoing. i think it makes more sense to keep updates on search and rescue to the current events tab, which is the norm for most disasters natural and otherwise. e.b. (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - We've already posted a blurb on the impact of the hurricane.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – All over but the shouting. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 1[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962)[edit]

Article: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, I've tidied up the referencing a bit, looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium stampede[edit]

Article: 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Malang, Indonesia, at least 182 people are killed in a stampede at a football match. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Malang, Indonesia, at least 182 people are killed in a stampede at an association football match.
News source(s): Reuters CBS News
Credits:

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment second deadliest football-related incident in history (unless you count the Football War). Juxlos (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Further comment requesting article protection. There has been a wave of editors with very poor grasps of English attempting to edit the article and move it around, generally with noticeable slant of POV. Juxlos (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support for request non-user/IP-only editors started changing death toll numbers without giving reliable news source or proper context. Dhio (talk?) 06:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (Update: vandalism incoming. Dhio (talk?) 07:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    Requesting on WP:RPP  Done. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 08:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Very unfortunate event. I'm speechless. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Dhio (talk?) 01:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment the death toll increased to 153, according to latest reports. Might be appropriate to consider modifying the blurb as "At least 153 people are killed in ......" and so on (emphasis to at least). Dhio (talk?) 02:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Pretty serious accident with significant death toll. And to think, just over soccer... what a crazy world. So unnecessary. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support worst football incident in asia ever, worst football incident since 1964, worst human stampede in several years. so sad. e.b. (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is sufficiently expanded to cover the basics of the event. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support Extremely deadly disaster and the article is in good shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support. clearly significant. article quality already exceeds the fuzhou standard. dying (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This is a Must Post. Why are we waiting? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I'm from Indonesia, and this is a very serious and significant event. 153 dead, just because a football team lost, is a HUGE disaster. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 03:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait The article is not ready to be put on the front page, there are too many grammatical errors. Mlb96 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see them. Example? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blurb edit request: seems that there are corrections on the death toll, so it's still around 125-131 according to officials like the Vice Governor and the Chief of the Nat'l Police. Both stated that miscalculations had/might've happened from double records for single individuals. So, instead of "at least 182 people..", "at least 125 people..." might be better. Dhio (talk?) 13:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. See the update at WP:ERRORS. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Rick Redman[edit]

Article: Rick Redman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Marvin Powell[edit]

Article: Marvin Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

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) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Dan Wieden[edit]

Article: Dan Wieden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ad Week
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: American advertising executive - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Antonio Inoki[edit]

Article: Antonio Inoki (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): F4W Online;
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: Professional Wrestling Icon, Japanese Politician, probably deserves a blurb for being a transcendent figure in both Pro Wrestling and MMA Spman (talk)Spman (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    Bulldada? -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    [9] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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 StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Surely you must be sarcastic? Spman (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've been here long enough to know how this works, Sca. 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)Reply[reply]
    It might be opposition to the proposal that he’s blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD in principle once expanded, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "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)Reply[reply]
      Exactly. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      My point was that your !vote is completely worthless. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I did take a look, but this needs so much work that I wouldn't even expand. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Robin Marlar[edit]

Article: Robin Marlar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN; Sussex County CC
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état[edit]

Proposed image
Article: September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Burkina Faso, a coup d'état led by Ibrahim Traore deposes Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Junta leader of Burkina Faso removed in coup. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Support. Article is in early stages but looks good, however I'm not sure if this is important enough news.  — Rooves 13 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    'Much' reaction from the world seems unlikely, given Faso's recent history. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait to see if the coup holds or if any further developments occur. - Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is the second coup in BF this year. Masem (t) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support It’s ITNR, notable and article looks good enough to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, I believe we normally put successful coup in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Second-cycle coverage: [10] [11]Sca (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Remove the ongoing link, which is excessive while there is a posted blurb on Russia's annexation of Ukrainian regions. Those bolded links lead to pages which are navigable to other invasion-related info. —Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Presumably it would still be ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The invasion is clearly still ongoing, there is no reason to remove it just because a substory has been blurbed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Amakuru.  — Rooves 13 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Héctor López[edit]

Article: Héctor López (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. Date of death not given. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support GA, fully referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Needs more sourcing at Héctor López#Panamanian history. 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    @Bagumba: 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)Reply[reply]
    Striking my oppose. I'm not surprised that the section was not salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kabul bombing[edit]

Article: September 2022 Kabul school bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide attack on a training center kills at least 23 people and injured 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A suicide attack on an education center kills at least 23 people and injures 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, DAWN, Al Jazeera, AP, DW, France24
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
Wait - Obvious reasons Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Education centre" is a better descriptive and per sources, "training centre" is ambiguous. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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). SpencerT•C 02:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per support reasons above. Dhio (talk?) 09:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Narrative text totals 190 words, i.e. stub territory. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough substance. Short page padded by "Reactions" section masquerading as Wikiquote.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Bagumba and Sca. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Ready) RD:Akissi Kouamé[edit]

Article: Akissi Kouamé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Press Ivoire (in French)
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: First Ivorian female army officer. An article I wrote a few years ago to improve our coverage of female military figures. Dumelow (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Al Primo[edit]

Article: Al Primo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; WABC-TV
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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. SpencerT•C 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Spencer: done – removed because I could not find any reliable sources to verify the info. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've added a {cn} tag for the origin of "EyeWitness News". --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Bloom. --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Leonard A. Cole[edit]

Article: Leonard A. Cole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (September 29); died on September 18. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine[edit]

Articles: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (talk · history · tag) and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Putin declares four occupied Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The four Ukrainian Oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are formally annexed by Russia after widely condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb II: ​Four districts (Oblasts) of Russian-occupied Ukraine – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – are formally annexed by Russia after so-called referendums are condemned by the international community.
Alternative blurb III: ​Four Oblasts of Ukraine are annexed by Russia after referendums are held within the territories.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Russia annexes the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Alternative blurb V: ​Russia announces the annexation of the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb VI: ​Russia announces the annexation of the partially occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
News source(s): CNN Reuters

Nominator's comments: This WILL happen and it's the most aggressive geopolitical/territorial change in the Western World since the end of the Cold War. Needs a better blurb. I posted this a bit early because the articles need a bit of cleanup and updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0e:d619:3d00:417c:3eac:70d0:f5cd (talkcontribs)

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    Wait – The annexation article needs a lot more work before it becomes suitable for posting. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait – Russian annexation is set for Friday, and we should wait for it to occur. See AP BBC Guardian Reuters DWSca (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until the formal annexation on Friday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support once annexation takes place. Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support ... when it's a done deal. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
We should not be trying to characterize the referendums, though we can mention something like "widely considered illegitimate" Masem (t) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    I'll have what he's having. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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  Wizard 💙 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, they are called referendums by the Russians. So, "so-called" seems defensible. -- Sca (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Putin signs decrees paving way for annexation of two Ukraine regions - Reuters  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    Added (with a minor tweak) as Alt6. Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Annexation now official. Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – Yup. AP, DW, AlJazeera, BBC, France24Sca (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Source Gust Justice (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Alt4 ... as the best summary. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • CommentFWIW, 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)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: people here may want to chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) as a somewhat related discussion. Fram (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    Support per fram Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To add now, Ukraine has formally applied to join NATO, which is being reported as part of the same story as this annexing. [12]. --Masem (t) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Add Ukraine–NATO relations? —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Remove "after widely-condemned referendums" I believe there was rough consensus to exclude reference to them. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    qualitative descriptors are subjective; thats the problem with "widely-condemned" ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral doesn't mean bland, it means apply WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: Ukraine has applied for NATO membership. [13][14][15] Dennis Dartman (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

September 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: David Gottesman[edit]

Article: David Gottesman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Jewish Telegraphic Agency; The Wall Street Journal
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Some of the older REFs could use some refreshing. --PFHLai (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der Bijl[edit]

Article: Andrew van der Bijl (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Times
Credits:

Article updated
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.

Nominator's comments: Dutch Christian missionary, Bible smuggler and evangelist, announced 9/28. Content considerably revised for neutrality/removal of commentary, expanded with additional detail, and added third-party refs (instead of relying on his autobiography), and article is in much better shape now. SpencerT•C 01:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Urbani[edit]

Article: Tom Urbani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Santa Cruz Sentinel
Credits:

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) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gavin Escobar[edit]

Article: Gavin Escobar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian (Associated Press); ESPN; The San Diego Union-Tribune
Credits:

Article updated
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Coolio[edit]

Article: Coolio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, Variety
Credits:

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) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Well established and well known QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Usual sourcing problems with filmographies. --Masem (t) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ditto, suggest Photo RD when ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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 SoWhy 05:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sadly, I haven't, regular RD'll do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per WP:ITNPICT, the posted picture generally comes from a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    How about this photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
  • Support once issues at filmographies are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support I believe the sourcing is now at an acceptable level to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - per Pawnkingthree and Muboshgu. Jusdafax (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support § Filmography much better sourced compared to the revision of the first oppose. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Plante[edit]

Article: Bill Plante (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American journalist. Worked for CBS News from 1964 - 2016. Thriley (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Hurricane Ian[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida, United States, after knocking out power to the entirety of Cuba. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba, knocking out power to the entirety of the island.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least sixteen people are killed after Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba and Florida, and leaves millions without power.
News source(s): [16][17][18]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Category 4 hurricane hitting Florida today. Mandatory evacuations have already been called for. Cuba has lost all power as a result. Blurb can be updated with damage estimates. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet. Sarrail (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Sca: Are people in Cuba not people? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Idiotic comment. -- Sca (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am also wondering why we aren't doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting Muboshgu and The ed17. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elijahandskip: 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)