Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/October 2022

Not supporting, picture for Bernanke. Facepalm from me that he got the award and no jail term for dereliction of duty as fed chair. Sad state of affairs. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to discuss whether he deserves the prize or should be jailed. I'd welcome adding a picture of either Diamond or Dybvig, but I wasn't able to find one under free licence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I am saying I dont support his picture, and reason for not supporting the picture. Oppose for this overall nomination due to size of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stress again that the individual year articles that have come up a couple times are highly questionable because of the list of possible winners. The Nobel shortlists are not revealed to the public until years after the award is given, so this is just a hypothetical list, even if the sources are types that say "So-and-so should be a frontrunner for the Nobel..." Take away the list, and all you have are details that should be on each bio page or the main list article. --Masem (t) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's easily solvable. We can simply link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences instead.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Without the list it's a mere 285 words of narrative text, most of it boring, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We really want the winners to be highlighted. The list of past winners is usually added as a non-mainstream link. Masem (t) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support: Ben Bernanke is good to go. The Awards section for Douglas Diamond is uncited, but that should be an easy fix. Philip H. Dybvig is quite short, but everything is cited and major points are covered, so it's good enough. However, I strongly suggest the removal of the link to 2022 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, replacing it with a link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The yearly articles have been put into question multiple times on this page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb as follows: Template:Tq Given that the only bolded article is that of the pictured person, and that article is good to go, I see no reason why we need delay this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if we were to settle for only bolding Ben Bernanke (seems awkward as co-winners), it fails WP:ITNCRIT:Template:Tq2 Needs an extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—expanding on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman. Moreover, the page's current state is bad MOS form to mention and cite the prize in the lead only, without any mention (let alone expansion) in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mulayam Singh Yadav

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 9 Template:Cob

Support. One of the most prominent politicians of India. Article is well sourced. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article looks good, I am seeing no issues. Seems ready for RD. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine. Aakash Singh India (talk).
Any prose on the subject's death? Any sources to support the tabulated data in the Electoral performance section? --PFHLai (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PFHLai, I Added in Personal life section. Natural death. Refs added in electoral performance tables. Marked ready --Venkat TL (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the new footnotes, but we need more. Can we not use 2014 refs as source for things that happened in 2019, please? -- PFHLai (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, that was supposed to be in 2014 section. I think I have now fixed all issues you pointed. Venkat TL (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

(Posted) RD: Chuck Deardorf

Support assuming that the final reference supports all of the discography sections that are not otherwise sourced (this could be clearer). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 01:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eileen Ryan

Support Well-referenced and long enough. Appears to be good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 09:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margie Masters

Comment: I think the sniper story deserves mention with a sentence and would add a little bit of depth, but otherwise Support. Referenced and meets minimum depth standards. Spencer^T•C 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 11:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Los Angeles City Council controversy

Oppose Not relevant to a large enough geographical area. Noah^Talk 21:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Los Angeles is the second largest city in the United States, and there has been a call from President Biden for the involved councilmembers to resign. I believe the relevancy should not be understated here. riffic (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This may surprise folks, given I was the one who created the article in the first place. However, municipal politics like this is not even front page news in the United States, so it is unlikely to meet the threshold of being interesting to a global audience. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No policies will change, and local resignations due to abusive behaviour typically will result in another person from the same party taking over. Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we cover this, then we should of course then cover the Kanye West breakdown from last weekend. Which, no. We are living in times where predominate people speak poorly and in racist/sexist/x-ist tones, in public or private, and raise complaints from others. Unless this disposes a major world leader this type of stuff is status quo.--Masem (t) 21:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not going to call for a SNOW close like I might normally do in this situation. But it's pretty chilly outside nevertheless. This is the City Council, mind you. This is not even the state legislature or the governor's office. And even then, we do not go out looking for outrage stories (we get plenty of those just in Wikipedia itself!). For something like this to be truly newsworthy, it would have to shift the tectonic plates of global politics somehow.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply not significant enough due to the municipal nature of this. Curbon7 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anthony M. DeLuca

Posted Step hen 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request Template:Ping could we have some discussion before immediately posting? Regardless, article looks fine for posting. Support nonetheless. Cheers. Wime Pocy 13:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bruno Latour

Not ready, the article has a bunch of uncited content. I'm also noticing an inconsistent citation style, which isn't a big deal but might also be good to fix. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots still unreferenced. There are also references to page numbers that don't make it clear which publication they relate to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took a look at this again, and the unreferenced paragraphs clearly refer to the texts of the books mentioned in the headings, including the page numbers. There's only one citation needed that we need to fix. Please post ASAP so this legendary figure can have a day on RD before this goes stale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:CB00:3260:5A0:2455:619C:9A08 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked again and there is still far too much without inline references and what you describe as clear isn't to me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Austrian presidential election

Conditional support A reactions section would be greatly appreciated and some paragraphs need better references, otherwise I support. Tone 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment. So much is unsourced, and there's absolutely nothing regarding reactions. Also, FWIW, "incumbent" isn't needed in the blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is far from "very good". Since the election of heads of state without executive powers is not ITNR, and since it's a re-election, I don't think I have any reason to support it. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several days later the article has not been improved: there is no prose on results and no section on Aftermath/Reactions. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amended per above comments. I did not realise there's whole sections uncited further down initially. Still there are many sources in the article, maybe they jyst need to be placed accordingly. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Absent from main pages of most RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—article is not awful but election is for a de facto ceremonial figure by the sounds of it. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. He is better known figure, there were many Austrian chancellors (5) during his tenure,a nd he appointed them. He does have a large influence, it was dependent on him whether there were new elections. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Anton Fier

Great drummer, but his death was announced on 22 September, so this is unfortunately stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD:John Duncan

One of the most poorly referenced bios I've seen here in a while. Step hen 03:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly now referenced, but still an explicit CN for the playing career and one sentence of the managerial career also lacks a source. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With only 260 words of prose, this wikibio is a bit stubby. The date and place of birth mentioned in the infobox need sources, and there should be a sentence in the main prose mention these points with a footnoted ref or two. A referenced sentence on the death of the subject is also missing from the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Formula 1

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 8 Template:Cob

Support Great work on the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support content; however, all three blurbs as presented are awkward. Perhaps "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins his second World Championship", or "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) claims the 2022 Formula One World Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix".~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about “In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) claims (or wins) his Second World Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix.”? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see it was already posted. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 Common practice for the R item. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 Looks good, form is also in line with the other recent motorsport blurbs. Vida0007 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable sporting event that has featured prominently in worldwide news. Crecy1346 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and ready. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We usually post sport-season related stories when the season ends, and here there are still a couple of races, even if the winner is known. Just a comment, no strong opposition to posting now. --Tone 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true. Generally we post once the champion is known. See [51] for example, where Manchester City were posted as champions on 16 May, despite matches continuing up to 23 May. — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— This policy was amended in May 2021 as per Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 83#Amendment to Sports ITNR. WP:ITNSPORTS currently reads: "In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined". It also existed in precedent anyway—The 2020 F1 Championship was posted on 16 November with three races remaining. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Championship article does not mention the Japan race in the mid-season rounds section (which should probably be a closing rounds section?). Step hen 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still got four races left on the calender. Koltinn (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a proposed blurb that mentioned the Constructor's title remaining undecided, but it seems to have been replaced. Anarchyte (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Previously there have been posted ITN articles about the Drivers' Championship being won before the end of the season. For example, Hamilton won in Turkey in 2020 with 3 races afterwards, but it was posted after Turkey. Seems like sticking with precedent and trying to post it in a timely fashion, that Verstappen winning the Drivers' Championship deserves a mention after the race. TartarTorte 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Newsworthy event, also per WP: ITNR. Alt2 seems like the least clunky. Fireboltsilver (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Season summary section must be updated before posting to the main page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont see sourced prose that says that Verstappen is actually the champion.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bagumba. The prose describing the season seems to come to a shuddering halt after the Belgian grand prix, in the "mid-season rounds" section. I assume we're into the late-season rounds by now, and there are four grands prix after Belgium including the one where the title was clinched. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prose in season summary section is incomplete. Last race mentioned is the Belgian Grand Prix, four races ago, held on the 28th of August. If someone who desires this to be posted would fix that, I think this would then be sufficiently ready. --Jayron 32 12:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for season summary update as mentioned above, support alt2 thereafter. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, for season summary update. Alex-h (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've updated the closing rounds section. Obviously, more could be added but the main gist of the races are there now. Anarchyte (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2—as per above. Opposes and waits now addressed, should be good to go. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank Youso

Support Article looks fine. No cn tags, short but sweet. Cheers. Wime Pocy 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Grace Glueck

Posted Step hen 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: André Chagnon

Posted Step hen 00:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Faustino López Vargas

Posted Step hen 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Tobin

Support Seems good to me. --Bedivere (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion

Support on the merits. While we shouldn't post every step in the war, this seems to be a notable one to call out, once the article is in okay shape. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seems to ultimately be insignificant. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on that? I think we would post large explosions that severely damage and partially collapse an iconic bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Øresund Bridge or the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge. The Crimean Bridge is also strategically significant and this incident (irrespective of the cause) is already disrupting supplies to occupied Crimea. Doesn't seem "insignificant" even if this doesn't merit posting. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia's stance is that the damage to the bridge would be "promptly restored, since it is not of a serious nature," with independent sources also not differing (note the frequent use of hypotheticals). Unlike Russian cruiser Moskva, this seems like it'll be out of the news rather quickly and the general topic is already covered in ongoing. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Russians have any credibility really left, especially at this point, so their stance maybe worth noting down but no more than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is expanded a bit more. I think the actual event is notable enough. Compusolus (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but adding a more concise alt blurb. Sandstein 10:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered in ongoing. Either we develop guidelines for what events in the war are nonetheless worth posting, or we flat out decline to post all of them. Banedon (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe the answer is things that are not expected in the normal course of war. Attacks on roads, rail, & bridges to disrupt supply chains are expected. Incidental civilians deaths are expected, execution of civilians is not. Use a nuclear weapons is not. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support BBC says "it is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge on fire." BBC. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support longest bridge in Europe Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more than one explosion, so changed nomination blurbs to plural. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Oppose Another sketchy scenario, covered by Ongoing, death toll understated and dwarfed by those of recent similar explosions in several countries (including this one). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward support per all above. But the article needs some expansion and I think the blurb should mention the casualties (3 people). --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noteable; significant damage to a critical piece of infrastructure; Russia's (and Europe's more broadly) longest bridge.✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 12:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support widely reported in its own right. Juxlos (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – The bridge was only damaged, though ostensibly severely, and Ukraine officials have issued veiled threats to destroy it. Suggest we wait for further developments. So far, this seems more another chapter rather than a game-turner. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Covered by the ongoing. This is why we have ongoing, we aren't turning ITN into a Ukraine-Russia news ticker. --Masem (t) 13:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Covered by the Ongoing line item. — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I see this as less of a war story (even though it's obviously related), and more of an important-bridge-collapses story, and that is a story that seems ITN worthy despite the ongoing. --Torsodog^Talk 14:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge-partially-collapses. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was fully aware of the situation when I supported. --Torsodog^Talk 16:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not war related and the focus on the bridge collapse, it is readily repairable and not completely destroyed. If the entire bridge was lost, that would be significant infrastructure news, but that this is closely tied to the war and that it is nowhere close to a complete loss of the bridge makes it that more insignificant from that angle. Masem (t) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add , the bridge is already partially reopened [52] so yeah, not a significant impact. Masem (t) 17:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significance beyond the physical damage. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Significant event. Ongoing does not cover this significant event at length. So I support this posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If Wikipedia existed in 1940 and Charles Huntziger blew the bridges over the Meuse, we wouldn't consider that a postable item. It would necessarily be considered part of an ongoing event. There are plenty of places for readers to go if they want blow-by-blow accounts of what's going on. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isn't just any other bridge that was blown up like nothing. It is the longest bridge in Europe. I would agree with you if we were some house or mall were up for an ITN nom, but not in this case. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too early to judge the significance. Nigej (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Sca (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't disagree more. Every news report is describing the significance. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyped. -- Sca (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Torsodog. Schierbecker (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Russia doesn't publicly concede that this incident was due to the war, and Ukraine has not admitted responsibility(just some snide remarks), so Ongoing is off base. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your probably right, but personally I wouldn't be too keen to add it until 1) we know what the effect of the explosion is and 2) we have some idea what caused it. I'm not in favour of directing readers to an article which doesn't tell them very much. Nigej (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a major event in the war (although as per 331dot none of the parties concedes this is actually part of the war). --Bedivere (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the surviving road has already been re-opened and there's no particular reason to think that the rail disruption will be long-term. Teemu08 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered in ongoing, and the BBC is reporting reopened to rail traffic during the day (as well as light road traffic), which calls into question "heavily damages the Crimean Bridge" in the Alternative blurb specified. Rwendland (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC also states "It is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge - which was opened by President Putin - on fire." [53] 331dot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but does "significance and symbolism" in any way imply heavily damaged? The BBC expert's comment "The lack of obvious blast / fragmentation damage" seems more pertinent. Though if you look at the video given, it does seem one road carriageway section has collapsed between one pair of pillars. Rwendland (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Ogdensburg–Prescott International Bridge suffered temporary structural failure and two or three people were killed, I don't think we would post that, no matter what the symbolism of it would be. I think it'd be SNOW closed. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. – Sca (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is another bridge 50 km upstream; it hardly comparable. This is the only road/rail link Crimea has to the rest of Russia, and the longest bridge in Europe period. It is a critical piece of infrastructure that isn’t easily relieved by other infrastructure. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it is back in a reduced traffic-supporting mode. It will need repairs, but the "lifeblood" this bridge provided is absolutely still there. Masem (t) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, 4iamking, and 331dot. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Reading Turtle: I gotta get a cool signature like yours! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This bridge is a vital piece of infrastructure that was destroyed for reasons that may or may not be related to the ongoing war. Regardless, I think it deserved a place on ITN given its significance. Supporting also per nom and above. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not destroyed. -- Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. "Damaged", "partially collapsed", whatever--doesn't lessen the impact of the event. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support the comparison of the longest bridge in Europe to various minor bridges few have heard of, makes it clear that those who oppose this, do not understand the scope of what's happened. Sometimes I feel that if Russia dropped a tactical nuke on the government buildings in Kiev, we'd have someone saying "that's what the ongoing is for" and someone else would be saying "it's not even as big as Nagasaki - so it's not notable". Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some shocking comments on ITN before. I think this disingenuous comparison about tactical nukes is one of the most appalling rationales I have ever seen. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War evokes strong emotions, yes it uses colourful exaggeratory language to illustrate a point, but the point itself made is a legitimate one even if one disagrees with it; ITN process can be frustrating although I'd much prefer such rationales weren't made, it needlessly escalates tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, User:WaltCip, that mentioning the next step in escalation that Russia is talking about, is "one of the most appalling rationales" you've ever seen, User:WaltCip; personally I'd have been less surprised by Russia using tactical nukes in the current theatre, than Ukraine blowing up such massive infrastructure a 100 km inside the front line. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be lowering our level of discourse to that of genocidal warmongering tyrants and psycho-manipulators though. I think the user objected to the general tone, and nonchalantly mulling over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if not millions and an armagedon could be seen as insensitive; you could have worded it a lot better to illustrate your point. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this has now become a matter of semantics and to trivialize the Nfitz's original point as simply a matter of such is unreasonable. Wording was blunt, but the point regarding the coverage level of Ongoing stands. Ongoing presence is now being invoked to oppose a nom that has not been substantiated as related to the war itself. We can't unilaterally oppose anything related to this war simply because it's in Ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Background, Event and Reactions sections substantiate its relation to the war itself. The sources agree. Without the whole surrounding need for supply lines, provocation and morale boosts, this bridge is just concrete and the innocent victims are "only" a couple of adults. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't previously responded to this, but so far this war has had combat action since 2014 with Ukraine deaths at a little over 4,500 and Russian deaths at around 5,000. A tactical nuke would instantly result in the deaths of tens of thousands of troops within the span of a few seconds. Many people don't understand that the purpose of using a tactical nuke is for total and complete destruction of your enemy, just as it is with a strategic one. To insinuate that those who are opposing this item would also somehow be blind to the consequences and impact of what would be the first nuclear weapon used in combat since 1945 is not only a bad straw man argument, but it's also needlessly callous. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that the first use of a tactical nuke, User:Abcmaxx and User:WaltCip, would kill tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, is unlikely in my mind. I'd think such a use would be in the thousands at most, hopefully less. Russia has tactical nukes that are less than 0.5% of the bombs that the USA used in Japan - and less than 1% of WMDs such as the thermobaric bomb that the USA dropped on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in 2017 - which had a lot of opposition at ITN, including by WaltCip. We are off-topic, but I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone would dismiss a nuclear weapon that killed tens of thousands of people; I don't think Russia would start with such a large weapon, at least in an urban area. At the same time, I'm stunned that there'd be opposition at ITN to post the use by the USA of a weapon of mass destruction that was almost as big as the Hiroshima bomb. WaltCip actually referred to the 2017 attack as "Pentagon military propaganda". It makes one wonder if announcement of the 1945 atomic bombings was also "Pentagon military propaganda". Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't help that the bomb was being trumpeted as the "largest non-nuclear bomb" as if it were something to be proud of. At that time in U.S. history, I think we were all a bit leery of certain political figures using the military to try and score political points. I'm not saying for sure that was what was in the back of my mind when I opposed that nomination (I recall Trump wanting some enormous military weaponry parade on 4th of July or somesuch holiday), but I sensed the impact on ITN culture. In retrospect, I could have worded my rationale better. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the BBC. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is not completely out of the ordinary to elevate major stories in an ongoing event to a blurb. We have done it before and we should do now here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the lack of a confirmed cause and Crimea not being an active combat zone I'm not sure if this is truly covered by ongoing. The Kip (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is very much "in the news" even now, and directly caused the Zaporizhzhia residential building airstrike in retaliation; I think there will be a lot more consequences to come from this itself.

I would also add that it is likely the bridge was never meant to be completely destroyed. As Ukraine does not target any civilians (very opposite to Russia) Ukraine's objective is partly to make the Russians leave Crimea and the bridge is their only way out; there are already queues of panicking people trying to leave. Their other objective is to stop the supply of fuel and arms and those are mostly done via train; the train tracks have been destroyed, and nothing more than a normal passenger car will now be able to cross really via road. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per 331dot, Juxlos, The Kip and Nifitz among others. Not a part of the Ukraine War and all over the news. Obviously notable and the article is in very good shape. Let's post this ITN-worthy blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – I love the work put into the article, but this type of infrastructure destruction in occupied territories seems (to me) to be an extremely normal aspect of war, and possibly less noteworthy than the capture of a city. I do think our Russian invasion of Ukraine article should cover this event in detail, but to me this hardly reach the top 10 of important Russo-Ukraine war events of this year. But the article looks good so we don't have much to lose featuring this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Part of the wider picture, which now includes Russia's vicious missile "revenge" on Ukrainian cities for the bridge blast. [54] [55] [56] [57] – Sca (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Significant event. Alex-h (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Covered by ongoing... just another part of the war that has been going on for some time. Regardless of who actually bombed the bridge, this is a warzone. Things of this nature are expected to occur. Noah^Talk 17:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with the Russian strikes into one blurb. nableezy - 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree it should be combined with the blurb on the retaliatory Russian strikes nominated above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and merge it with the strikes on Kiev. Together, this seems like something that is significant enough to warrant a blurb, and the articles are in decent enough shape. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still neutral, but adding an alt blurb 2 that includes the retaliatory strikes. Recommend that an admin assess consensus and either closes this or posts it. Sandstein 09:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak support for posting both. I like these two articles, they are well-written and enlightening, and great representations of our coverage of this war. I will note that the ongoing item is still covering this subject terribly, which is a point in favor for putting our dedicated coverage on the front-page instead. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with altblurb2. Regards So Why 10:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Template:Ping sorry to be contrary but I don't see a consensus to post this, and there particularly isn't consensus to mention the bombings, which were explicitly rejected and closed above. This is covered by the Ongoing line item. — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I do see consensus to post the bridge attack. I have taken into account that multiple people (including yourself) have opposed due to the ongoing item being there but then again, a number of people also argued that ongoing does not necessarily cover this since the perpetrator is unknown and it might be argued that this area was not a war zone and people also argued in sufficient numbers that this should be posted despite being in ongoing. Also, while the argument is made frequently, there is no general consensus as far as I know (and certainly none in the WP:ITN page) that an item cannot be blurbed just because it falls under ongoing and this seems to be the consensus on WT:ITN for years now (for example, if Wikipedia had existed in 1945, I'm pretty sure we would have added a blurb for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki despite an ongoing "World War II" item). If you think there should be such a rule, feel free to start an RFC to amend the rules accordingly. As for the bombings, the consensus in this discussion was to add them after the proposal was made to merge them. That there was no consensus to post them as a separate item does not preclude posting them as part of this item. Regards So Why 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were brand new weapons with never-seen-before destruction and Japan surrendered shortly afterwards. This bridge explosion, as an ITN candidate, paled in comparison. You need a better reference point to be more convincing. Consensus may be developing, but we are not there yet. -- PFHLai (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PFHLai: I was pointing out that there is no rule preventing a blurb just because there is an ongoing item. The ad absurdum example merely served to illustrate this point (on a side note, no one would have known Japan would surrender shortly afterwards at the time of this hypothetical ITN discussion).Template:PbWhen assessing consensus in a discussion, one of the key points is to consider the strength of the arguments and arguments that invoke a rule that does not exist (e.g. "Oppose because ongoing") logically have to be considered weaker. I do acknowledge that the existence of an ongoing item is relevant when judging whether an item should be featured independently or whether it is something readers will expect to see as part of the coverage in the ongoing item. However, that does not preclude an independent entry if there is consensus to feature it despite the existence of the ongoing item. And in this case, I do believe there was such a consensus. Regards So Why 07:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq: While there is no rule that precludes a blurb for a related ongoing item, there is also no rule to discount !votes saying Ongoing is sufficient. To post a blurb or not w.r.t. to Ongoing is subject to consensus on a per-case basis. —Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Yes, that it Template:Xt is exactly my point. Logically though, any !vote that argues that something cannot be posted as a blurb just because an ongoing item exists, ignores this. I did not discount !votes that said they do not believe that this is not notable enough to rise above the coverage already provided by the ongoing item, an argument I myself have made in the past, because that on the other hand is a valid argument. Regards So Why 08:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: I can understand if that was your interpretation in this case. However, I see !votes like "covered by ongoing" as being ambiguous as to whether they mean "(Sufficiently) covered by ongoing" or "(Not allowed because) covered by ongoing". For me, I'd AGF and assume the former interprettion, else ask the !voter for clarification. —Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Agree with Amakuru. The bridge blast, which failed to destroy the bridge, was posted prematurely, IMO. Missile attacks on Ukrainian cities are covered in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About 60% favored posting this. That's not close to consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ITN doesn't work quite like AFD or RM, where line calls can be made; generally if there's very significant opposition then the default is not to post. — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for the actual combined blurb finally chosen. I was wavering on whether either of these would work separately, but the final synthesis seems sound. There has been a fair bit of hyperbole in the arguments for and against, some of it quite distasteful; I think the actual decision made was a good one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pull—as per Amakuru and GreatCeasarsGhost. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support for combined blurb, seeing as there is a motion to pull and I forgot to provide an original vote. Yes there may not consensus, but that does not mean that is grounds alone to pull. I think combining the two provides a fuller picture of the collective events and should satisfy those who supported either or both noms. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already posted now. While I didn't support the original blurb, I don't endorse pulling an item on a nom that was a split decision and thus down to administrator judgment.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am already on record as opposing, so this is not intended as a double !vote. That said, I agree with a number of comments above that there does not appear to be consensus to post this. And further there was a fairly clear consensus against posting Russia's retaliatory attacks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per Amakuru. And we have ongoing event for the overall war already. – robertsky (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not in favor of pulling. Pulling would be amateurish & confusing to readers. And the blurb is not erroneous. -- Sca (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing suggests amateurish or confusing to readers. If anything, it suggests that consensus was not reached. Blurb isn't erroneous, but contrary to the ITN processes. If anything, pull the ongoing and the blurb remains? Surely not. – robertsky (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't care how the sausage is made. They just end up being puzzled by items appearing and suddenly disappearing from the Main Page, regardless of what process it took to get there. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bismarck said people should never watch two things being made: sausage, and laws. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be the first or the last even if we pull the blurb. Why are we beholdened to such puzzlement? – robertsky (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really any more "confusing" than blurbs getting knocked off the end or an edit anywhere on wikipedia that removes content? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting opposehow many times do we have to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is already in Ongoing?? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pull. I didn't support the posting of the Russian missile attacks (though supported this) - but given that even Russia has made it clear that they are linked, I think linking them in the blurb is a very pragmatic approach. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pull. Agree that a pragmatic approach has been found. Not to rehash everything that has already been said, but a)having the war in Ongoing doesn't prevent us from posting individual events of that war if we deem them significant enough; b) this is not any random bridge that was attacked (the Antonivka bridge near Kherson has been bombarded multiple times), but rather a hugely symbolic one directly linked to V Putin and his annexation of Crimea. Anyway, enough said. Khuft (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was no clear consensus to post this. This is the nth-time we have posted about a single event (more than even COVID-19), perhaps surappassing any other coverage on ITN. The votes reasoning with "Ongoing" inclusion do not mean it as a rule, but that this item does not go beyond its notability to be covered separately. I voted with the same ongoing reasoning here while also having previously voted to include the formal annexation by Russia. To discount these votes wholesale for being lazy or not justified enough (no one needs to argue the same point repeatedly with these noms having beome routine now) was poor judgement by Template:U. We are setting a bad precedent with the heightened/repeated coverage of this war for future ITN events. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Creeslough explosion

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 7 Template:Cob

Oppose, petrol stations and transports blowing up is somewhat routine (unlike bridges, see above), and the casualty count is not exceptional. Sandstein 10:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I initially added this to the current events news portal when the story was developing. Reported outside Ireland extensively and also very significant event in the context of the small population and rarirty of such an event in Ireland. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost Support Unusually deadly in an uncommon setting, widely covered. Could use an Investigation section, the mystery is strong here. No need to solve it first, though, just get started. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Sandstein. Unfortunate, of course, but not generally significant. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a unfortunate domestic incident, and the fatalities are not as great. --Masem (t) 13:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support War events should not be a measure for other contemporary events, this is significant on its own considering where it took place. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This sort of thing is not common in developed countries. That said, I don't think it is quite on a level justifying attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support - The death toll of this unusual disaster is in that weird median of being in-between significant and insignificant (combined with all other factors, of course). --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As we used to say, parochial. -- Sca (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We post a lot of parochial items on ITN, and at times it's not even really clear what the definition of parochial means. That's why it's not listed anywhere in WP:ITNCRIT as a discriminatory factor. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is met in this instance. — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - it's notable because this type of thing happens very rarely within the developed world, and is a freak accident. Rest in Peace to the victims. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a local event that will be unlikely to garner widespread coverage, or at least enough to justify a front-page story. Definitely tragic for that town but not significant beyond that. Sorry. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is not true, it already has been reported worldwide, even the aftermath: DW - Germany, TVN24 - Poland, Washington Post - USA, Le Monde - France, News24 - South Africa. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

October 7

Ogbaru boat disaster

Comment No-one interested? Sheila1988 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the article is a stub, sub-1500 characters, and the background, which doesn't relate to this current incident, says that the event is common. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a bit short. Is there a sourced rational for why it was overloaded (which the blurb implies was from shaping or evacuating from floods) Masem (t) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ada Fisher

Posted Step hen 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charles Bowsher

Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Warren J. Baker

Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 06:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lorry I. Lokey

Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Robinson (novelist)

Posted Step hen 22:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dave Dryden

Support Nice length and very well cited, very good article in my opinion. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sara Lee

Posted Step hen 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize 2022

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 6 Template:Cob

Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't care about breadth of coverage, just that coverage there. --Masem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In the news biz we do, in the real world. -- Sca (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We're the encyclopedia biz, so we have different metrics. Masem (t) 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, ITN is a fixture of the encyclopdia that is effectively an adjunct of news reporting. (But to be candid, my main motive was to try to evoke some work on this highly significant Nobel.) -- Sca (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be that guy, but this is a INT/R item so that's more or less assumed, no? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bialiatski's article needs a lot of work, and the Center's article is barely a stub. The Memorial article needs a bit of referencing improvement. --Masem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not loving any of the blurbs verbatim, is there one prize "jointly" awarded to the 3 recipients; was there 1 prize to a person and 1 prize to 2 organizations jointly, were there 3 prizes, etc? - put up an alt2 to try to clarify that there is 1 prize, with 3 recipients splitting it. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality: Ales Bialiatski#International recognition is mostly unsourced and reads like a CV. Memorial (society) appears OK. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukrainian civil society organization) is essentially a stub. Sandstein 10:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality for the same reasons as others have pointed out already. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Stale. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not more stale than the chemistry award though, given not much updates seems coming, maybe a incomplete coverage is better than zero coverage on one of the biggest annual awards (again)? 218.188.197.158 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

(Posted) RD: Tyrone Davis (American football)

Support – Article appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Günter Vetter

The whole article is sourced to only two biographical websites. There is no independent coverage of his career. Step hen 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two websites are his parliamentary biography and the national public broadcaster, so they're certainly reliable. Not many print sources talking about him. There are some news channels that talked about him, but I don't know Deutsch. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jody Miller

Posted Step hen 21:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Judy Tenuta

(Posted) RD: Gian Piero Ventrone

Comment: IMHO, this wikibio could work as an RD if it gets more developed and longer. Right now, it's a little short. Blurbs are more for heads of state while still in office, a world leader or globally-known figure (Einstein, Thatcher, Mandela, QE2, Putin, T'Challa ^{(if real)}, ... etc.). I don't mean disrespect, but I don't think the subject of this wikibio qualifies for blurbing. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, have removed the blurb. Dr Salvus 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the removal. Can the article be expanded a bit more? Not everyone thinks 249 words is long enough. There isn't a strict cut-off number, but when DYK is asking for 300 minimum, ITN/RD shouldn't be too far off. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find else but this one. However, it contains only unencyclopedic content. I think Quality > Quantity. Dr Salvus 18:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any info from RS on his upbringing, education, career before joining Juventus in 1994 at age 34? Things like that should take this short article out of stub range. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done Dr Salvus 13:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. No longer a stub. 443 words now. --PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you like it why don't you support it? Dr Salvus 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objections in four days, why can't it be posted? Dr Salvus 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths cannot be posted if their article is currently nominated for deletion. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a stupid nomination, it currently has 6 keep's against the sole nominator. Everyone could close it. Dr Salvus 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nomination is trending towards being kept. The ITN nomination has a few days until it goes stale. Assuming the AfD continues this way for the next few days, I think we can close it a little early, after its run for six days or so, and post it for ITN before it goes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nomonator has withdrawn it. It can be posted. Dr Salvus 08:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD It's a better blurb than most we see, for giving a cause, but it's a natural cause. Famous as T'Challa or not, that's never much of a story. Article is short, but not glaringly inaccurate (unless an Italian reader can point out what proves me wrong on that). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gian Piero Ventrone is in progress. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid AfD, three keep's and only one (the nominator) delete. Dr Salvus 16:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: The AfD has been withdrawn. (2.0) Dr Salvus 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

Oppose for now For the usual reason. Annie Ernaux has a couple prose spots that need citations and almost the entire Awards section is unsourced. Nobel Prize in Literature should not be bolded, but if it is, that adds more problems, as there are several uncited paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opoose Ernaux's page lacks a sufficient update per WP:ITNCRIT:Template:Tq2—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another stupid, pointless rule. Toss it out. There is no need for an article to be updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should have posted this article even if it hadn't been updated to note that she won the Nobel Prize? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been accomplished with a one-sentence update. If someone with a featured article dies, like say Buzz Aldrin, we don't want people adding five sentences just to warrant a blurb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a news website. The entire purpose of ITN is to feature writing that is recently updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Looks pretty good. One citation required left. Template:Yo Can you tell me what the issue is with fn 19? It looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the help text linked from the error message insufficient? If so, what is not clear and why?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it. It said "Check |archive-url= value" but I checked it and the archive-url was fine. What it meant (I think) is that the archive-url did not match the url, so I adjusted the url card and it is okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ernaux's article is missing citations at several places. --Masem (t) 02:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality just needs citations on Eranux page and maybe some expansion in certain places. Maybe use 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature instead of Nobel Prize in Literature as it has other information not found on Eranux's page. echidnaLives (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to post with the laureate's name in bold in the blurb (I haven't even looked at the other article). I've gone through and referenced everything that needs a reference. This is based on the assumption that the section "Works" does not need referencing. Quite a bit of content has been posted since she was awarded the Nobel Prize, including about the prize itself and reactions to it. Schwede 66 08:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to support The ISBN/source is missing for the last seven books included in the "Works" section. I'm concerned that we are falling behind in Nobel Prize nominations this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see a general reference if not ISBN for those books, then ready to post. Tone 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support cited now. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Not overlong, but looks adequate. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Sandstein 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nong Bua Lamphu attack

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 5 Template:Cob

Support blurb Per nom. Article looks to be in good shape. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently still a stub, but I expect to support this as the article gets expanded. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support at a nursery, bloody hell. Juxlos (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is written as if the named suspect (not yet convicted from what we have in the article) did it; the attack section should be "The shooter did this" type language. --Masem (t) 12:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any doubt as to who did it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until that person's convicted, we assume innocent, per BLPCRIME. Yes, it seems unlikely anyone else could have done it, etc. but until the dust has settled, most such attack articles leave the identity of the shooter/attack vague until the conviction is secured. Masem (t) 12:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They shot and killed themself, so there won't be any trials. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't libel the dead." -- Old saying in the news biz. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can libel the dead's family. They're a suspect during this period. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Police identified the suspect as 34-year-old former police officer Panya Kamrap." -- AP

"Police named the attacker as Panya Kamrab." "Police say he ... killed himself and his family." -- BBC

"The gunman [was] named as ... Panya Khamrab." — "... before killing himself and his family." -- AlJazeera
– Sca (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the suspect is different from reporting the crime using their name directly. Even in these suicide attacks we try to avoid naming the person in the description of events until an investigation is complete to assure that the suspect actually did it. Masem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

when the 2022 cetinje shooting was Template:Diff2, it looked like Template:Oldid2, and also named the only suspect as the perpetrator. i don't know how far into the suspect's family wp:suspect reaches, but the suspect also apparently killed his wife and children. dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that at ITNC (not that it was here, just don't remember it) but I would have had the same issue there with thst, that until police close the investigation, the description of the event should not explicitly name the suspect. We can identify who the police have named, but avoid using that name is the breakdown of the event until police have settled that as fact with their invesyigation. Masem (t) 13:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support ... pending development, cleanup of article. Significance dubious as it's another act of an apparent wacko, but the toll – 37, including 24 children – can't be ignored. Widely covered. Favor Alt2 or Alt3 because outside Thailand very few English-speakers will recognize the name of the province, either. — Sca (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons stated above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the Robb Elementary School shooting stayed on ITN for days then there isn't a reason to exclude this one. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a specious argument. The length of time any blurb spends on ITN is entirely a factor of other items being posted. It says nothing about the significance of the item itself. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. All of the articles cited appropriately use the "police claim" language, so we certainly do not want to put the BLP's guilt in Wikipedia's voice. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horrific crime. Concerns over BLP don't appear to be a major issue as all of the local authorities are identifying the perpetrator without any qualification and the subject is deceased so there is no possibility of a trial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. -- Sca (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLP update I removed the person's name from the shooting description. He's identified in a later section, which resolve BLP concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that resolved my concern. Masem (t) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alt blurb comment Nursery is mentioned in most headlines. I've added a new alt blurb. Also the district seems too low of a level to be recognizable, even for most Thais. I'd suggest using the province.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt Meets quality criteria. Various circumstances should (hopefully) avoid the usual shooting posting objections.—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support. deadliest mass shooting ever in thailand. article quality exceeds minimum requirements. would it make sense to mention that it largely occurred in a childcare center, or that the majority of those killed were children? Template:Oldid2 for the giza church fire mentioned that it had spread to a nursery, and that it had killed 18 children. the altblurb partially addresses this, but is currently slightly inaccurate as he apparently drove home before killing his family. dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, i am slightly wary about using the term "nursery" since i believe most of the sources (or at least the ones i am seeing) refer to the site as a childcare center, daycare center, children's center, or something similar. dying (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lots of casualties, shocking event, this deserves mention.VR _talk 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and ready! Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Location in blurb Using "Northern Thailand" in the blurb seems dumbed down and comes off as a Western bias compared to our usual blurbs. Nong Bua Lamphu is in the article's current title, and provides a teaching moment to mention it in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks ready and need not be expanded solely for the purpose of ITN. What a horrible event. I also would go with alternative blurb 1 as it is the most descriptive. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality and this awful event is clearly significant in ITN terms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted alt1 with '37 deaths.' DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – The name of the province conveys nothing to most readers of English Wiki. Mentioning the child victims would be much more meaningful. Cf. AP headline: "37 dead, mostly preschoolers, in Thai day care rampage." Not suggesting we use such language as "rampage," only that we say something about the kids. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to harp on specificities here, but I think it's assumed that if the shooting were at a nursery, most victims would, unfortunately, be children. Perhaps Blurb #1 conveys both that children were the primary victims as well as where the province is for those who don't know much about Thailand or its provinces. For example, the recent ITN story about the stadium stampede in Indonesia was a learning moment for me to understand that Indonesia has provinces too. I absolutely see where you're coming from though. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We all can learn, but in ITN we're writing for an audience primarily of quick at-a-glance readers. Those who want to know more can read the article. -- Sca (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding "mostly children"' or similar, but location doesn't require removal. —Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

(Posted) RD: Lenny Lipton

Comment: Books list needs either a citation or an ISBN, otherwise this has appropriate depth and is referenced otherwise, conditional support. Spencer^T•C 02:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Refs have been added. Spencer^T•C 04:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barbara Stamm

Support I read "Bavaria" as "Bolivia" and so was surprised to see a German politician. Looks to be sourced and in good shape to post, AGF on German language. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter)

Support Article is in good shape. Looks ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Boggs

Support Another short and well-referenced article. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 4 Template:Cob

Support. But I suggest putting the image of Barry Sharpless, for now he is part of the select list of five individuals with two Nobel Prizes. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's clear that this's notorious. But let's see if someone can make a collage with the photos of the three laureates. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine for a Nobel prize winner, Alex-h (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sourcing issues on two of them are blocking this. Masem (t) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for now~~, Karl Barry Sharpless is almost good to go, there are just two easily fixable cn tags. Carolyn R. Bertozzi has more problems: several awards are uncited and so is a big chunk of the Personal life section. Morten P. Meldal has the biggest problems of the bunch: the entire achievements sections and almost the entire awards section is unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty much good to go now. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Template:Ping -- remind me, was it you who had helped create a composite image with all the prize winners combined into a single image the last time? If so, please can you do that this year as well? Ktin (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've boldly commented out paragraphs or whole article sections that were poorly cited or without any citations. That makes the Morten P. Meldal article look much more sparse but it's still a valid bio. I suggest that in their current form, the three articles make the cut. Schwede 66 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meldal's page still has lots of unsourced text. They all seem to only have one sentence updates, failing WP:ITNCRIT:Template:Tq2—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What else are you going to be able to say about winning the Nobel? That's at most a one- or two-sentence update as any effects that would have are longer term. Masem (t) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a chemist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy. complainer 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morten P. Meldal remains mostly unreferenced. Step hen 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI've added a couple of references to Meldal's page. Any chance this can go up soon? Narayanese (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go go go! I commented out whatever remained that was uncited, so its good to go now. Only a few hours before this goes stale. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted replacing the Literature Prize. Step hen 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

(Posted) RD: César Mascetti

Posted Step hen 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shigeki Tanaka

Support Appears well-sourced; no issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jerry Vainisi

Support I've referenced the only unsourced part. Good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joan Hotchkis

Support Article is in good shape for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Aaron Judge's 62nd Home Run

Oppose Look, I'm a huge baseball fan, and a Yankees fan. Even though Judge is my favorite player since Jeter, I can't support this. The MLB record is 73, set by Barry Bonds. As much as we might like to overlook the steroid champion, we can't. Great for Judge, bad for the Yankees if he signs elsewhere as a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confused What, exactly, has been achieved here? The article linked is behind a paywall or wants me to sign up, so I looked elsewhere and found this. It shows this achievement at seventh place among the MLB all-time single-season home run list. Do American League players not hit as many home runs? (SIGNED: A non-American interested in baseball.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were some records for single-season home run leader, then Babe Ruth came and broke them all. His personal best was 60 in the 1927 season. Then, Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Those were both in the American League. Then, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke Maris' record in 1998 while playing in the National League. And Barry Bonds also surpassed it. The issue at play, and the only reason we're talking about the "American League record", is because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. So, many don't see their records as "genuine", and are putting Judge's accomplishment this season ahead of the steroided seasons. But, MLB still recognizes 73 as the single-season home run record for MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Maris Jr. has been pushing the idea that his father is still the "legit" record holder. Surely he's biased. I am so, so biased in favor of Judge and the Yankees myself, and Judge is having an amazing season. But, Bonds is still the record holder. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the biggest records in baseball. The 3 guys you saw were all in peak steroid era (1998-2001, though the steroid era extended deeper into the 90s and 2000s then they started drug testing). The American League actually has slightly more home runs but by luck the 3 highest dopers were in the other sub-league of the top league. Unlike the Olympics major league baseball doesn't revoke accomplishments for cheating (the Houston team literally won the yearly world championship while cheating a few years ago and was punished but they didn't revoke their win). In cricket terms a home run is a six (each bounce boundary only causes a bit under 1 run on average, a bigger dropoff than 6 vs 4 in cricket) but there's only c. 1 home run per game per team on average and they cause 1.something (1.7-1.8 I think) out of 4.3 runs per game per team on average so they're actually rarer than soccer World Cup goals and about as valuable. In baseball you can fail to score even if you safely run 90 yards before fielders can get the ball to you, but just hit it over the boundary (300 to 400 feet away) and your team's guaranteed 1-4 runs (4 if you have 3 "batting partners"). Average c. 27 wickets and 140 deliveries per team in a Twenty20-length game and only 1 homer and 4-5 runs. 5 in the steroid and human growth hormone era. The recordholder literally injected etc so much of those drugs his skull visibly grew and he set it pimply-backed and muscular like a Greek god at age 36 after being skinny as a young man. Our roided up role models also got the side effect of small testicles and low ball testosterone, higher body fat, heart risk etc. Some of this damage is permanent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The National League was always better at small ball. Levivich (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regrettably. Many people regard this as the real record, but sadly it is only officially the AL record. IMO AL/NL records are not ITN worthy (and very possibly not MLB records as a whole, but that may be a topic for another day). DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As pointed out, this is not the MLB record, just the AL record. --Masem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is literally inside baseball. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Loretta Lynn

Support Blurb - Country music legend. CoatCheck (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb when ready. Being the most awarded female country artist in history and the article calling out "her groundbreaking role" certainly lean Lynn being transformative in her field. rawmustard (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just don't forget to evaluate the quality of the article. I remain neutral on blurb, because country music is a genre that generally has popularity in a very specific country, so we are hardly in front of a singer massively popular worldwide. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of sections without sources. Needs a lot of work just to get to RD. Not against a urb, but the quality isn't yet there for it. --Masem (t) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready for the usual reason. Will likely support a blurb if the article can be brought up to scratch. Subject was a titan in the country music genre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I don’t agree that she was so influential in the history of country music. A great singer yes, but no contribution at all in popularising country music worldwide, which is what would make her transformative. She was definitely not of the same stature as Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kenny Rogers or Dolly Parton.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone [58] ranked them: 49.Rogers, 8.Parton, 6.Nelson, 4.Lynn, 3.Cash. Wide Open Country has Lynn, Cash, Parton, & Nelson among the 30 greatest. Bilboard [59] has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash GreatCaesarsGhost 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t say it. I’d rather argue that Hank Williams was perhaps the most influential country singer of all time but can’t include him because he died literally before all these four began their careers. Cash made a global tour to popularise country, Rogers and Parton did popularise it through their crossover music, but Lynn did not succeed in popularising it in any way. Country isn’t a mainstream music genre worldwide so that we can post a blurb for many singers. There must be something else other than a good voice that makes someone transformative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to whatever criteria you'd like to apply, but "transformative" was removed from the criteria for death blurbs some time ago. [60]GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb subject to sourcing being fixed - perhaps as she was considered old style country rather than the crossover style she didn't appeal to that mass market like Dolly or Kenny, but a huge star and one of the most important country music figures nonetheless. RIP Josey Wales^Parley 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Longtime household name among fans of U.S. country music. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support more than enough evidence for her to be considered a noteworthy death per above. She may not have crossed over, but the evidence is overwhelming that she was iconic within the genre. If Jeff Carson can be on the front page, so can she.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Carson was posted to RD only. We’re discussing whether Lynn should get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It doesn't matter how important she was when the article is at least 50 citations short of being suitable for the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Article is a long way away, but remember that this woman wrote most of her own material. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...until a lot more citations are found for the article. It is hopelessly under-sourced. And I can't see why a blurb is needed here. There is nothing blurbworthy about her death. She was obviously well known in her country, but I haven't seen blurbs for performers equally well known in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Per HiLo48, Black Kite, et al. I also notice that the article is orange-tagged at the top saying it has “Multiple Issues,” which is usually not the best of signs when it comes to article quality. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:B043:B00D:FAA5:596E (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way short on references. (Also oppose a blurb, if it ever gets that far.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support She’s way too influential to be ignored. The quality of the article is fine, but I understand we’re picky. Just a shame such a titan is being ignored… Donignacio (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, this is a long section for someone who is allegedly being "ignored". Help us fix the article and it'll be posted sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the “nomination” page is not what I meant. The article itself appears in my estimation to be comprehensive, but I’m not picky. At this point, the time has passed, I’m afraid. I just wonder if there’s other motives at play. Donignacio (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are boldly linked on the main page need to be of high quality to represent WP's best work. Her article may be comprehensive, but its sourcing is presently shoddy and not representative of WP's best. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Masem (t) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck do people expect items to be posted in less than 24 hours? We've had anomalies of items that get posted even faster than that, sure, but it's not the norm around here. I'll never believe that it is. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't know how things work at ITN/C does not excuse the lack of good faith you are presuming with that Template:Tq crack. Our motive is posting sourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m making an observation that, in my opinion, there is an injustice. An opportunity to highlight a transformative female figure lost. But sure, I’ll make it my personal mission to improve Loretta Lynn’s Wikipedia article. Donignacio (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That thing you just sarcastically dismissed- making it your personal mission to improve articles- is our entire purpose in being here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was being serious. I just can’t improve the article at this particular moment. If I wanted to get sarcastic, I’d have brought up all the cricket players who show up on the front page. Donignacio (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, RD blurbs should be reserved for cases where sourcing could support a separate article on the death and funeral of the person. This occurs quite often, and is an indicator of how important the person was in the real world, instead of in the minds of those debating here. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all. The ability or existence of separate death article is a very likely reason to post a blurb, but not limited to that. Masem (t) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's true, as it is an opinion of mine and of some other editors. I will state my opinion every time a non-blurb-worthy person is nominated. Abductive (reasoning) 15:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb American country music fans is a pretty niche demographic, kinda like French hip hop fans or something. Not known widely enough for a blurb imo. AryKun (talk)

Incredible though it may seem to some of us, there are fans of 'American' country music outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Garth Brooks last month sold out an 80,000 capacity stadium in Dublin, Ireland on each of the 5 nights he performed Josey Wales^Parley 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As did Michael Bublé and Robbie Williams, who are way more famous. I may enjoy a night in with a Bollywood film, a souvlaki take away, and a game of mahjong, but just as enjoying those things do not make those things any less Indian, Greek and Chinese respectively, neither does the fact people may enjoy country music outside the US make it any less American. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed also French hip hop fans outside of the francophone world. Though I would very much love to blurb top-of-their-field people in niche genres, we'll also get Dolly Parton and Bob Dylan as US country blurbs in the future. US country is represented just fine, and Lynn isn't quite up there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind French hip-hop, we didn't even consider blurbing recently deceased American world hip-hop star Coolio! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a few world-famous American hip-hop stars we will certainly blurb when the time comes! Hopefully this won't be for a long time, however, as they're all still quite young ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was 59. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb It's very US-centric fame and a niche music genre. She may be well known in the US and among fans of country music, but absolutely anonymous outside of that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on quality as well. Aside from issues already raised by others, the article is all over the place; lots of content which is all jumbled up in half-prose half-lists, horrible to navigate and horrible to read. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discography is now cited. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD now. I would ask for what value of X in "Xth best country singer alive" or "Xth best country singer of all time" a blurb is justified. Clearly we're already in a niche genre, so I'm going to say 1st & 5th respectively, and she is not there. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Subject to the article referencing being fixed up. Loretta Lynn's fame transcends country music - way more famous than the other people who have been mentioned here except Hank Williams (and would not be their opinion if you asked them). She is an important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s, through singing about topics previously considered taboo, such as birth control, domestic violence and double standards. Sissy Spacek won the Oscar for portraying her in the movie Coal Miner's Daughter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Way more famous than the likes of Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton? I don't think that's likely. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dolly Parton would not agree. Jack White from The White Stripes called her both a "mother figure" and "the greatest female singer-songwriter of the 20th century". "She was such an incredible presence and such a brilliant genius in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. What she did for feminism, women's rights in a time period, in a genre of music that was the hardest to do it in, is just outstanding and will live on for a long time." [61] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. I think a lot of us have lost a co-worker like that, maybe several, great people once you get to know them. As a mainstream music fan who also knows a thing or two about American pop culture until 2006, I'm almost certain Dolly Parton is the female country star. Then there's Shania, Reba and Faith. Loretta's not chopped liver, but neither are Leann, Tanya and Wynonna. Photo RD, when ready, if ever. No blurb for Jack White, either, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s - maybe in US and on the country music scene but certainly not beyond it, and I cannot see any mention of her in the Second-wave feminism article. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb – Adding a clearer !vote for the closing admin. I believe US country will be well-represented over time, and Loretta Lynn is just not quite up there. If this were a GA I might've swayed in favor, but all these one-sentence paragraphs just aren't great featuring material anyway. Article doesn't seem quite ready yet for RD either; I hope those citation-neededs will be fixed soon! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose RD on quality~~ Many outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems mostly resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken care of most of the cn tags. There are a few more to go. Any help would be appreciated. It would be a real shame if this didn’t make it to RD. Thriley (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All cn tags have been taken care of. Looks ready to post. Thriley (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:Yo does it look ready? Thriley (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I was reviewing it... Had added a {cn} tag on a sentence about political affiliation. Was going to look for sources later today. But that sentence got deleted before this wikibio got posted on ITN/RD. Oh, well, ... never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 3 Template:Cob

Support - Looks good to me(also this is my first time voting, so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is totally fine, PrecariousWorlds, and I'm sure everyone here will be happy to have another voice in the discussions here. The three articles indeed look quite decent so this will probably be ready to get featured on ITN in the near future. I'm personally going to wait with my !vote until John Clauser's article is expanded a bit more tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I hope I can be of help to this project. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support... although Alain Aspect's article has a missing reference ([10]); there needs to be more references of Clauser's article (there's only two, and his entire biographical section only relies on a single source, not enough); at a glance, there are no issues for Zellinger's article. Been some time I made a nomination, hope my viewpoints arent rusty. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Zeilinger's article, the awards section is largely unreferenced, this needs fixing before we can post. Tone 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your right. Over 20 awards, and none of them cited. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Are you sure we need to fix this before posting? The news might get stale in the meantime. It happened last year ! Why not just remove the unsourced information and post the news? Varoon2542 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone with the ability try to create a composite image that combines the three awardees into a single picture? Is combining three images a tad difficult? Tagging Template:U who iirc has created composite images in the past. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Nobel prize is a major event and comes in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that has never been questioned. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready I've orange-tagged the articles because they still don't meet the quality requirements as the CN tags they've have not been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: Alain Aspect has a few inline cn tags that should be easily fixable, but also the entire Awards section is completely unsourced. A big paragraph in John Clauser is also unsourced. Anton Zeilinger is almost catastrophically unsourced: there are around a dozen-and-a-half cn tags, and a huge portion of the Awards section is unsourced.
Not ready I've boldly commented out uncited sections and two of the bios are ready, but Anton Zeilinger is a show-stopper. Schwede 66 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this is getting a bit urgent. Last year, one nobel prize win in science was not posted for similar reasons. Quite shameful. Can't the uncited sections be removed and the blurb published? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U There are 28 citation needed tags and not everything that is uncited is tagged. So no, this isn't remotely ready and if you removed everything that's uncited, there would not be much left. Major exercise required to fix this. You are welcome to have a go at this, though. Schwede 66 06:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do get your point. I can't have a go at it, I'm not that good. Well, we are moving forward to another year when a Nobel Prize in Science won't be featured on the main page. By the time the article is up to standards, the news will be stale. I remember a time when many complained that there weren't enough editors for sociology articles on wikipedia. Apparently, we don't have enough persons for science articles now. So much so for an universal encyclopaedia. Varoon2542 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All currently fail WP:ITNCRIT with only one-line updates to the pages:Template:Tq2—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what else can you say about winning the Nobel beyond a sentence or two? Common sense has to apply here. Masem (t) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 articles are fine. Zeilinger's is still heavily tagged with cn on sections other than Nobel Prize. Tone 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman. —Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a physicist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy. complainer 22:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WORK NEEDED Can we all improve Zeilinger's article? It would be unforgivable that this year, once again, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics is not on the Main Page. I will work on it too, but there's a lot of work to do. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go go go! I have commented out all of the unsourced content from Zeilinger's article. The content of the material hidden isn't show-stopping, and the article still makes sense with it hidden. We only have a few hours before this becomes stale, so it is good enough for now. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The articles are referenced now, large and with much prose. Seem good to go now. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support articles are in acceptable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 19:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

RD: Kim Jung Gi

Oppose Article has multiple citation needed tags. The "Bibliography" section is entirely unsourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's time for a re-review? Looking better after a few of days already. The "Bibliography" section still needs more sourcing, though. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tiffany Jackson

Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets RD breadth and sourcing requiements.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support solid C class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William K. Brewster

Support Another short but well-referenced article. Of course, good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ron Franz

Support Article is short but well-referenced. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support G2G. marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eamonn McCabe

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]

Support – article is well-referenced and now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is good and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jerzy Urban

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]
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]

probably not blurb-worthy on en-wiki, but a photo may be appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IAR aside, I thought we had a policy that photos are for blurbs only. The most recent discussion I could find- [62] GreatCaesarsGhost 21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – RD only. Generally unknown outside PL. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD no blurb - former spokesperson of Polish Communist Regime CR-1-AB (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

2022 Bosnian general election

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]
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]
Much better. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]

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]
Agreed, as much as I love the idea of a rotating one, I think it's just easier not to include a picture. JackWilfred (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support AltBlurb and Oppose picture, as per above. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support AltBlurb, I think the article is looking good. The BLPs look alright, but I would recommend fixing up the citations of Željka Cvijanović if possible. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prose on the actual result, it's all background, electoral system and results tables currently. Step hen 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bulgarian snap parliamentary election

Oppose on quality For the usual reasons: there's no prose about the results, there's no section on reactions or aftermath and it would be nice if there was more prose in the other sections where there are only tables. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still seriously lacking prose, and one of the three short paragraphs is even uncited. Nowhere near the required levels for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

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]
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]
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]
Support. As every year, this is brand news and deserves ITN. And tomorrow (and from then on) there's more. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned on the specific year article here. I don't recall us doing that with the Nobels before (the overall listing of each award, yes), and the fact that the shortlist of candidates for the award are not made public makes that current list there highly suspect and OR (even though those are all pointing to secondary articles saying "These people should get awards". If you take that list out, that only leaves the winner, which is what the other bold link covers. --Masem (t) 01:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lists of people who have been called X (candidates in this case) typically become unwieldy directories with no selection criteria of who is WP:DUE to be included. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last year (and past?), we just linked to the general Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine page.[63].—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I post this now? I would just like to see some explicit support. Not planning to link the 2022 article, just the laureate. Tone 13:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Pääbo is the article under discussion then I support featuring it. It looks good. The normal Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine article looks good too. 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine might deserve an AfD discussion? Regardles, it is of insufficient quality for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few unsourced sentences and a couple of Template:Cn tags. Please see if anyone can fill those, now that the article is on the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Only paltry one-sentence update about the Nobel prize at the bolded Svante Pääbo, failing WP:ITNCRIT (emphasis added):Template:Tq2—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Brazilian general election

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]
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]
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]

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]
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]
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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
I definitely agree about using full names. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

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]

Oh. ;-) ... But still seems significant. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wait for the run-off.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 2 Template:Cob

October 2

(Posted) RD: Douglas Kirkland

Posted Step hen 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Englehorn

Support - looks good. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks ready. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Laurence Silberman

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]
Comment I've added a CN tag because I wasn't able to find a source to support the claim that he had written In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. Other than that, the article looks great.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I resolved the CN tag, and everything else seems to be in order. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sacheen Littlefeather

Support Her article is ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellently written article about an outstanding individual, it's ready to go! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
Posted already by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Darshan Dharmaraj

Article is a stub, mostly just a filmography list. Not sure this meets on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

Not much improvement over the past 5 days. Still rather stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protests

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]
Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Step hen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
Support definitely ongoing and constantly in the news Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The protests are still ongoing & still in the news. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Protests are still ongoing indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as ongoing – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Significant. [64] – Sca (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further coverage: [65] [66] [67] [68][69] -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 London Marathon

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]
Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results. Template:U, 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]

Done. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the race summary section hasn't been updated, though; in fact, Template:Oldid2 is still using future tense. for comparison, Template:Oldid2 is how the summary for last year's race looked like when the associated blurb was Template:Diff3. dying (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the tense issues and updated who of the expected competitors actually ran but a prose summary is still required. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, prose summary was added. Step hen 01:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe

Oppose ~~and snow close~~ not ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

- Agree. -- Sca (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - What/whom is it you are agreeing with by the way? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
- 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]
  - 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]
    - 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]
    - 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]
    @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]
    ok, thanks for the clarification. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Ramzan Kadyrov

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]

This is clearly not ITNR. I've removed that from the nom template. --PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close simply not. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close Per above. This is just one of many comments made by various Russian officials during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ITN is clearly not the place to feature this. Gust Justice (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Latvian parliamentary election

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]
Support once expanded and Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

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]

Support ALT1 once expanded. ALT1 is more clear of what the result actually was. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
Comment – The Union of Greens and Farmers will not support a government led by New Unity leader Krišjānis Karinš, Aivars Lembergs says. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks quite decent, especially once I found the Aftermath section at the bottom, but I feel like it wouldn't look good to ITN an article with an "Update" template header at the top. We feature articles here because they are updated with the most recent information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes Haris920 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this now to try and save it from becoming stale. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added prose to the results section mainly by folding the Aftermath section into it and expanding upon that (the Aftermath section wasn't actually about the aftermath of the election, it was all just the results). I also fixed all the cn issues. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the Aftermath section, consisting of coalition negotiations. Curbon7 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Brazilian general election

Wait for results and nominate them as blurb, not ongoing. a!rado (C✙T) 09:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
- 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]
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]

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]

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]

(Posted) 2022 World Rally Champions

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]
Support great quality article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
- Actually, major media like BBC, Reuters do report the event, just hours late. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Comment – Absent from main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
- 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- The age list is covered at List_of_World_Rally_Championship_records#Age. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixing MOS:EGG by adding an age section. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Seems like someone objected and has removed it from List of World Rally Championship Drivers' champions.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Hurricane Ian

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]
- "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. Noah^Talk 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
- 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. Noah^Talk 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[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]

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[70] 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]

Template:ReI 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. Noah^Talk 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we just hit 100 deaths in Florida with more expected as searches continue. That's the highest amount of deaths in a single mainland US state from a hurricane for quite some time, especially considering the amount of preparations and building codes that have been implemented in Florida to prevent disasters like this. Most US hurricanes don't even reach 100 deaths and their impacts are spread out amongst multiple states, so to get 100 in a single state speaks to how bad the situation there is. Noah^Talk 21:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]

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]

Oppose - We've already posted a blurb on the impact of the hurricane.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – All over but the shouting. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noah that larger storms should be considered for ongoing during the "long tail" period, but the article does not demonstrate that significant events/updates are still happening. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 October 1 Template:Cob

October 1

(Posted) RD: Sylvia Wu

Long enough with 400+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, just reviewed this for DYK and it looks fine - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962)

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

Posted Step hen 00:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium stampede