Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2022

(Posted) RD: Rick Redman

• Posted Stephen 22:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marvin Powell

• Support good to go.

_-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dan Wieden

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

RD: Antonio Inoki

• Oppose — I'm sure others will bring up the usual bulldada concerning the mere presence or absence of citations, so I'll address another concern. The most glaring problem with the article is the coverage of his professional wrestling career, which is more a scattershot series of unconnected statements than an accessible overview. It provides little to no hint of Inoki's global impact or his approximately two-decade stint as the top star of one of the planet's biggest wrestling promotions, both of which were significant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bulldada? -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  [3] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now I agree with RadioKAOS. Aside from the citations it needs, the article is also seriously lacking in content. I was surprised to see how short it is right now, considering Inoki's considerable stature in professional wrestling both in Japan and internationally. For example, there's only seven paragraphs in a section that covers over 30 years of his career. The article needs a lot of work, and if that could be done, I'd support a RD listing. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If it wasn't for the amount of work the article needs, I'd say that Inoki might be blurb-worthy. He was a massive cultural figure in Japan and probably the most famous wrestler there of his era. He also founded what is currently the biggest wrestling company in Japan and was a long-time politician. Does being one of biggest name wrestlers in a country where wrestling is immensely popular qualify? I don't know, but it's probably worth a discussion. -- 207.164.44.162 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely you must be sarcastic? Spman (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've been here long enough to know how this works, Sca. If someone who has an article dies, they're eligible for RD, unless someone nominates that article for AFD. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be opposition to the proposal that he’s blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD in principle once expanded, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Support RD in principle" means absolutely nothing. In principle, we'd post the article of every person who dies on RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My point was that your !vote is completely worthless. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For the record, Inoki would definitely qualify for a blurb. Regardless of whether you view his field as athletics or entertainment, he was at the top and one of the most transformative figures with a significant impact on multiple continents. It's a shame that the article quality doesn't reflect this, but I'll support a blurb in principle and oppose on quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I did take a look, but this needs so much work that I wouldn't even expand. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reminder There can be only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robin Marlar

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

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état

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

• Updated and nominated by Johndavies837 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Applodion (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

• Weak Support. Article is in early stages but looks good, however I'm not sure if this is important enough news.  — Rooves 13 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support - as a change of government leader in a sovereign state, this is certainly "important enough news" as it's covered by
  WP:ITN/R. I also don't think we've ever rejected a successful coup before. The article is quite barebones at the moment but the main points probably there. Some reactions maybe and consequences would be useful but I guess it might be too early to know that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Upgrading to regular support. I think this is good to go. There isn't much reaction from the world yet, and I've added a note about the human rights president in the country. I think this is good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  'Much' reaction from the world seems unlikely, given Faso's recent history. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait to see if the coup holds or if any further developments occur. - Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait for what exactly? Reliable sources are reporting that there was a coup and that a change of leadership has occurred. We don't need to apply CRYSTAL to that in thinking something might change.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the second coup in BF this year. Masem (t) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it should go into Ongoing, since something of this sort seems to have been in frequent delicto for quite some time. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Seems like a notable enough international event, even if the situation is still developing. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It’s ITNR, notable and article looks good enough to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I believe we normally put successful coup in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Second-cycle coverage: [4] [5] – Sca (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

(Posted) RD: Héctor López

• Support GA, fully referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Needs more sourcing at
  WP:CIRCULAR, and just mirroring "facts" already on Wikipedia. Care should be taken that a cited source mentioned the fact before WP introduced the unsourced material. The text in questions seems to have existed at least since the 2008 version that was listed as having been promoted to GA. It was only mostly sourced to a stats site, even then.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree that the section needs help before GAR comes up for sure. I'll take a deeper look. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bagumba: I deleted that whole section, except for the sentence about him having two children, which was misplaced. I've made other edits as well, so please reassess. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my oppose. I'm not surprised that the section was not salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul bombing

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

• Weak support once expanded - This one seems to be getting more news coverage than the others, and just passes the notability test in my opinion. That being said, it would be laughable to post an article with only a single sentence, as this one currently is.
  talk) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wait - Obvious reasons Prodrummer619 (talk)^{(@ when responding)} 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD:Akissi Kouamé

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

(Posted) RD: Al Primo

• Comment: The 2 sentences related to Marie Torre in the intro seem out of place and Torre isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, good depth of coverage, and conditional support when that is addressed. Spencer^T•C 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spencer: done – removed because I could not find any reliable sources to verify the info. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 02:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a {cn} tag for the origin of "EyeWitness News". --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PFHLai: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Bloom. --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leonard A. Cole

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

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

• Good faith submission, and the "results" of the referendums seem to be clear now. The article looks solid, and in that respect I have nothing against this being posted. Excellent work on it. But the legality and genuinity of the referendums is obviously the big talking point. I think I'll give this a support. Coverage in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article on this subject is currently limited, so the readership will be very well-served by this article, and it's obviously major news with all news agencies. The blurb needs work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait – The annexation article needs a lot more work before it becomes suitable for posting. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – Russian annexation is set for Friday, and we should wait for it to occur. See AP BBC Guardian Reuters DW – Sca (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the formal annexation on Friday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. This was already discussed a few days ago (under 23 Sept below) - the consensus was to wait until annexation actually happens, then reconsider. That will be Friday at the earliest. I suggest closing this nomination, which is premature. Modest Genius ^talk 13:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for not realizing this wouldn't actually be completed until tomorrow in my first comment above. The article should probably make this clearer. Right now it's only listing all of the results. I agree that this discussion should be temporarily closed until the correct date. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt4 is the one to use, when this actually happens. But that bolded article needs major work and is currently the subject of a move discussion. Modest Genius ^talk 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once annexation takes place. Altblurb added.
  talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support ... when it's a done deal. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• So are we taking the stance that Wikipedia will declare in its own voice that the referendums were sham elections? (I proposed Alt3, by the way.) 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather that than that we provide publicity cover for war crimes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be trying to characterize the referendums, though we can mention something like "widely considered illegitimate" Masem (t) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I introduced my son to you as "widely considered illegitimate", wouldn't that characterize him as a bastard? Well, it should. Same deal here, approximately enough (if a reader looks even slightly into the lead, they'll know what "we" want them to think). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the alt blurbs. Mentioning the referendum requires us to characterize it, and that opens a can of worms. The news is the declaration itself. The original blurb is somewhat inaccurate in calling them "occupied" as the annexation also applies to unoccupied areas. Perhaps "portions of Eastern Ukraine" threads the needle. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt4 - Annexation is the main focus, and the occupation regimes are hyperlinked. No need to hyperlink Russia, Ukraine or oblast, that's not usually done. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - until it actually happens, when it does it should be Alt 3. Alt 1 & 2 violate
  KING  15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'll have what he's having. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt4. We shouldn't mention the fake referendums where people were forced to vote at gunpoint and did not include the population that fled the Russian advance- or if we do mention them, it should be made clear that they are generally not recognized as free and fair(some say they are illegal under the UN charter). 331dot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once it happens. Would prefer AltBlurb 1. It's not a violation of NPOV to state that the referendums were widely condemned. On the contrary, reliable sources agree to call them sham referendums. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt4 when it happens. Neutral on including the sham referendums under the condition we mention their broad denunciation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For our Wikivoice, it seems best to term them "so-called," and let uninformed readers learn why from the article. ITN must maintain a tone of neutrality about controversial events. (This shouldn't be misconstrued as a personal notion that the referenda are anything other than modern-day Agitprop). -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with that. While "so-called" is not recommended by

  WP:FRINGE. A subtle expression of doubt like "so-called" could be the best option.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, they are called referendums by the Russians. So, "so-called" seems defensible. -- Sca (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine is not in good shape for posting, so we’ll probably have to wait until the article is improved even after the annexation formally happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support AltIV after official announcement. The annexing dwarfs the referendums that were (even from Russia's perspective) more or less a formality. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Putin signs decrees paving way for annexation of two Ukraine regions - Reuters  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt IV VI, although I would note that, strictly speaking, Russia has not demonstrated the ability to control that territory, so it could also say "announces the annexation" or "attempts to annex". BD2412 T 00:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The proposed blurbs might give the reader the impression that Russia controls all the territories within the oblasts it announces it will annex.
  This is not completely accurate, since they are only in part occupied by Russia. For instance Russia does not control Zaporizhzhia, but would "annex" it through it being part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, but the blurb might make the reader think that Russia does in fact control all of the oblast. So I might replace the phrase "Russia annexes" with "Russia announces the annexation of", which would also clearly imply that this is a unilateral act on Russia's side. Gust Justice (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think the intent is to annex the entire territory of the four oblasts so that the Ukrainian control of some parts could be considered aggression on Russian soil and the use of nuclear weapon would be justified. If they controlled the entire oblasts, they would've not rushed with these referenda.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose ALT5 based off above comment from Gust Justice and synthesis of other blurbs. We must be careful not to imply that Russia is doing this legally, nor that they control all of what they are claiming. The Kip (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that some of the "annexed" regions are only partially occupied by Russia (e.g. the capital/largest city of
  Fram (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, it makes more sense to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt 5 with the addition that they are partially-occupied oblasts. Clearly newsworthy above the usual level of the war, but also we must be clear that this is not even an approximation of a democratic process. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So something like: Russia announces the

  annexation of the partly occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.? Gust Justice (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Added (with a minor tweak) as Alt6.

  Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you. That was exactly what I meant. Support Alt 6, naturally. Well above the regular level of the war, and worth reporting. (For my part, I would also have blurbed at least some of the recent revelations of massacres, but that doesn't affect the issue here.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Annexation now official.
  talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – Yup. AP, DW, AlJazeera, BBC, France24 – Sca (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Source Gust Justice (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 5 Formally done now, articles appear to be sufficient. Front page news in outlets and further major aggressive step. Brandmeister^talk 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Alt4 ... as the best summary. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose firstly we should not be legitimising Russian propaganda and diplomatic blackmail; these are not real referendums in any way. If we start doing that we might as well post the
  Azovstal offensive and now suddenly post this; highly inconsistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – Suggest we post this as soon as possible, as it's bound to be the No. 1 story worldwide today. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – As I mentioned all the way at the top, the annex article is currently far from ready. I'd be alright with featuring only the referendum article instead, if ya'll are in a hurry. Blurb VI looks good tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it's already in Ongoing; these referenda aren't so significant as to warrant a blurb. It's not even the first of these sham Russian referendums in Ukraine. If we're going to post a blurb about this war, there are more important events to blurb (like the Ukrainian counteroffensive, or the Russian draft and protests, or the UN's report on war crimes). Levivich (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The war is already in ongoing, and those fake elections do not really change much beyond adding an extra political narrative to it. Also, saying in the blurb that they are fake elections, and not saying so, both have their own controversies. Fortunately, we don't need to get into that mess, as we don't have to post every news headlines out there. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The target should be changed to
  Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine as this where the ITN significance lies and not on the referendums (as seen in the last ITN nom). Similarly either the blurb or altblurb4 should be posted without unnecessarily needling the issue of referendums. For editors worried about non-neutrality therein, "annexation" and "occupation" already make it clear that these are extra-judicial. This goes beyond ongoing in officializing the annexation of sovereign territory, similar to the Crimea conflict. Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Amended nomination in line with the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Superfluous, redundant. -- Sca (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt VI – This is a major escalation. I would suggest that ITN reconsiders its policy of not featuring major developments due to the invasion being in Ongoing. Other editors raise a number of things that weren't featured on that basis that probably should have been. Perhaps they can be featured for a shorter time, a matter of days? JackWilfred (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you are describing is exactly what ongoing is for: an expectation that significant events related to the larger event will continue to occur. A building collapses, war crimes are revealed, Ukraine will apply for NATO, Putin will make declarations and threats. Ongoing does not minimize these events by denying them a blurb. Quite the opposite: it recognizes they are so significant we will feature them on the main page without even having a discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – FWIW, Already in German Wiki's ITN as: "Russian President Vladimir Putin announce[s] the annexation of the self-proclaimed "people's republics" of Lugansk and Donetsk, as well as ukraine's Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts." Also in French and Czech ITN listings. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: people here may want to chime in at
  Fram (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:OR appear to be written all over here, unlikely that any official Russian map or oblast statistics exist to this as of now. I doubt if even Russia is as fast as some of the fastest finger first editors here :|. Gotitbro (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: This nomination is full of alt blurbs, can we develop a consensus on one? 213.233.108.109 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt6 as the only precise one so far. Support posting as a major, development in this war, far beyond what "ongoing" is meant for.
  Fram (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Support per fram Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To add now, Ukraine has formally applied to join NATO, which is being reported as part of the same story as this annexing. [6]. --Masem (t) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Add Ukraine–NATO relations? —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. There's rough consensus to. I replaced "oblasts" with "regions" as a term that most English-speaking readers will be more familiar with. Sandstein 18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove "after widely-condemned referendums" I believe there was rough consensus to exclude reference to them. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Clearly, "annexation", "occupied" provide enough context as is no need to further wikivoice the blurb (also annexation and not the referendums being the operative ITN here). Gotitbro (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Post support of "widely-condemned" or similar. Many sites are calling it an "illegal annexation", no this seems like an
  WP:NPOV alternative.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  qualitative descriptors are subjective; thats the problem with "widely-condemned" ✨  4 🧚‍♂am

  KING  22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Neutral doesn't mean bland, it means apply

  WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: Ukraine has applied for NATO membership. [7][8][9] Dennis Dartman (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull either we develop guidelines for what developments in the war are nonetheless blurb-worthy, or we simply do not post anything at all while the war is in Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull The current blurb wording is not one of the listed ALTs and so there doesn't seem to be a consensus. This blurb gives the impression that Russia has achieved a fait accompil like Crimea while, on the ground, it is actually being pushed back in a significant way..It is therefore quite misleading. The current uncertainty and pace of developments is more appropriate for Ongoing which is why we have the entry there.

• Looking at how the blurb changed being about the announcement to being an actual annexation, it seems that this was done unilaterally for "balance". No discussion, no consensus, no balance. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the current blurb, is legally the territories haven't been annexed yet, the Russian State Duma still has to rubber stamp the "treaties" before they can be officially incorporated into Russia... Expected to happen sometime between October 4-5. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am

KING  21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

  Thanks for catching this, @Jkaharper. -- PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Gottesman

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

• @PFHLai: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the new REFs, Bloom. This wikibio is long enough (600+ words of prose), its formatting goods fine, there are footnotes where they are expected, and Earwig has no complaints. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru, Stephen, Bagumba, and Black Kite: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der Bijl

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

(Posted) RD: Tom Urbani

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

(Posted) RD: Gavin Escobar

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

(Posted) RD: Coolio

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

• Oppose on quality Usual sourcing problems with filmographies. --Masem (t) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of his discography is sourced at Coolio discography. Will be working on the filmography through tomorrow I'm sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto, suggest Photo RD when ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't oppose the idea of a photo RD but do you have any suggestion about which photo to use because the current one used in the article does not scale well to the smaller image size used in the ITN template. Regards SoWhy 05:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, I haven't, regular RD'll do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per

  WP:ITNPICT, the posted picture generally comes from a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Is there any time that a photo RD has been done based on notability, rather than times where there wasn't an applicable image for one of the main ITN blurbs? But speaking of blurbs, I wonder if he would actually be blurb-worthy - I'd arguably say Coolio is almost a household name, although he's probably not up there with others like Snoop Dogg or Eminem. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything starts somewhere. Coolio, Eminem and Snoop Dogg are household names (at least in my neighbourhood). Unlike you, I see this as a point against a blurb, since more people who see them in RD would already know they represent American rappers who died at age x. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How about this photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally like it, but he seems a bit distracted from the lens by a certain sumpin' new, and I know from growing up in a funeral home how tasteless that particular organ can appear in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once issues at filmographies are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update' I've sourced a lot of the filmography. But, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the other ones. Some of the sites coming up on a Google search seem sketchy, I'm not sure of their reliability. If IMDb were reliable, this would be fully cited. Remembering that ITN/C does not require every single item to be cited, and since I don't think anyone is challenging whether or not Coolio was in some short video that doesn't have a wiki page, the question is: is this filmography cited enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I believe the sourcing is now at an acceptable level to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Pawnkingthree and Muboshgu. Jusdafax (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support § Filmography much better sourced compared to the revision of the first oppose. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Plante

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

(Posted) Hurricane Ian

Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida, United States, after knocking out power to the entirety of Cuba. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba, knocking out power to the entirety of the island.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At least sixteen people are killed after Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba and Florida, and leaves millions without power.
News source(s): [10][11][12]
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Created by PopularGames (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 
  talk · give credit
  )

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

• Wait — Landfall has not occurred yet, but is expected to in the next 2-4 hours. After that, support.
  talk) 14:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: I added an alt blurb because currently, the impacts to Cuba are much more significant that Florida at the present time with the entirety of Cuba losing power.

talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm just making that the blurb for now because it's better than what I wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet.

talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wait ... as is de rigueur for developing weather events. Ian packs 155 mph winds, per AP report. Much Fla. fooding expected. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - why are we waiting for it to impact the US? It's no longer a "developing" weather event—it knocked out power to all of Cuba. Why not post that now, then update the blurb when it hits the US?
  [majestic titan] 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK, call it underway, if that makes you feel better. Semantics. But reports indicate the storm's biggest impact on people is likely to be in Florida. That Fla. happens to be in the U.S. is circumstantial, and not a factor in terms of news value. -- Sca (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post weather forecasts. We post what HAS happened. And surely what happens in Cuba matters? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

[majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Idiotic comment. -- Sca (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also wondering why we aren't doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting

talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

[majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Damage to Cuba is significant too, and we can say "approaches Florida" if it's posted before it makes landfall and update the hook as it does. Landfall in Florida appears to be imminent at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes in the mid Atlantic during the summer-fall months making landfall and doing some damage or forcing evacuations is a routine news item. Its why Fiona wasn't posted. We're looking for the magnitude of damage which likely would be based on how bad Florida is hit. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona could still use revisiting, even if it's trending stale. 27 deaths at last check. This is why these hurricane noms getting posted too early is a problem - they get buried before the storm's full impacts are known. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not bump them to the top if the death toll is at least 10-20 higher than the last time it was bumped off the top? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the impacts to Cuba? That's more important than waiting around for whatever happens to Florida. When it makes landfall, we can update whatever blurb we posted for Cuba. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support alt blurb. Whatever comes of the landfall in Florida, this is going to be a very significant storm.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Take heed of the stormy weather" – ?? — Sca (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. We have to stop with these noms before we have any real damage reports or fatality numbers. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. I'm all for having an uninvolved editor close this discussion so we can have a fresh one when we can actually make an informed decision about the notability. This one is already visually cluttered with predictable reactions to the premature nom.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”actually make an informed decision about the notability”…Guess 2 fatalities and an entire nation without power doesn’t make something notable enough for ITN.

talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't enough with Fiona. 2 is not minimum deaths material and we don't have any tangible number on damages yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A hurricane knocking out power to all of Puerto Rico isn’t uncommon (happened with

talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If I remember correctly, it was a struggle to get a consensus to post the

not a chance of a consensus forming when only two casualties are confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Loss of power is an inconvenience (yes, critical infrastructure like hospitals need it, but that exists everywhere) from such a major storm, so its not worth posting on that alone. Masem (t) 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

[majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Well I do fully disagree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard about wanting to wait to post Hurricane Ian until it becomes more notable. For all intents and purposes, I feel like you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion and I am saying my opinion that I fully disagree with that assessment. Slightly funny. I originally !vote “Wait” for US landfall, get told it is notable enough to post based on Cuba alone, switch !vote to support on an alt blurb about Cuba alone, then get told to wait again for notability (aka US stuff). ITN nominations are always fun…

talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion No, that's certainly not my opinion, and I ask you to strike that. I haven't even !voted, I just read the winds and came to the conclusion that nominating this when there are only two confirmed casualties was not the best idea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not the place to post unusual events like a country losing power. This is why we want something most definitive in terms of impact, like loss of life or scale of destruction. Masem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By that interpretation, even if Hurricane Ian became a category 5 at landfall, it would not be ITN worthy until either the death toll is higher OR NWS does initial damage estimates (after it dissipates). Sounds like ITN needs to have a long RfC to determine what "In The News" means. International coverage and hundreds to thousands of articles covering the hurricane, with a large portion commenting on the complete power loss to Cuba is clearly "In The News", however, from the def you just described, practically no storm could ever make ITN, unless a dozen+ people are killed. I do foresee myself starting an RfC in a few days on this topic.

talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ITN is about good quality encyclopedia articles that happen to be in the news. We are not a news ticker, regurgitating what are headlines, And since most weather events like hurricanes can really only be judged on quality based on the scale of their impact, that limits every such storm being on the front page. Masem (t) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. We will be seeing the impact of Ian's devastation in the coming days and weeks.

— That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the principle, however, I personally know many ITN’s that were posted with less than what this article has. Yesterday alone, it got 22,000 views. I am betting nearly 100k or more today. If that truly is the ITN principle, then this RfC in the next coming days will be extremely interesting and possible precedent setting.

If you really want to play the “good quality encyclopedia articles” route, then

talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. Also, based on that def, once NWS posts Ian's initial damage total, would that make it ITN (even if it ain't in the news anymore)? "Scale of destruction" cannot be judged during a storm that is ongoing, meaning you are considering only fatalities for ITN worthiness on a storm.

talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Masem, you know as well as anyone there is no

WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

By tomorrow you will be wondering why we hadn't posted this sooner. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is similar to what Noah points out below. The landfall in Florida is expected to have as much if not more of an impact, so it makes sense to post when there's actual destruction to talk about. And on the hypothetic, if Ian turned north and later made significant damage in New England or Canada (to add to death toll perhaps) then we can update it if it was posted. But as it is with Ian, the "damage" that we have documented is mostly just the power failure which, in a hurricane, is not remarkable. Masem (t) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ongoing It's still doing its thing, we can agree, whether we yet know how to word "its thing" into a few short points or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Weather events do not make for good ongoing since they only last for days, not weeks. We only need to consider posting when reasonably full extent if damages are known. Masem (t) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What's wrong with posting something for days? We sometimes do it with RDs. Way easier than us all agreeing on what constitutes a reasonably full extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The only time we did Ongoing was during Cyclone Idai when the search for bodies was continuing to uncover dozens to hundreds per day. Noah^Talk 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It already made landfall and may cause some casualties. Shwcz (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it made landfall in Cuba long ago. I hope that's what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Already had a big impact in Cuba, now made landfall in Florida. There are reports of 20 missing after a boat sank. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first blurb. nableezy - 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my support is based on knocking out power to an entire country. I dont really get how that isnt notable enough. An entire country's power grid was knocked out. Is it not important because it isnt the US or in Europe? nableezy - 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until the impact is known. Will reconsider if significant fatalities and/or damage occurs.

Noah^Talk 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So re-nominate in like 2-3 days (after it ain’t a Hurricane anymore)?

talk) 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That is normal, yes. Like any weather event, it'll probably be over by the time we know how devastating it was. That doesn't make it stale. "After it ain't a hurricane anymore" is the perfect time to post a hurricane blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Elijahandskip:It's still a fresh news story for a whole week after it dissipates. People shouldn't nominate here until fatalities have been confirmed. Even then, they shouldn't nominate for low numbers (ie 1,2,3,etc) since that's typical of any tropical storm. The Rambling Man is right that too many storms either get shitty nominations when they aren't really all that impactful to society like what happened with Fiona for the record or have premature nominations when we have no idea what's happening in the affected regions like what's happening here right now. This makes it harder for those actually deserving to be posted. Noah^Talk 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose The death toll from Fiona is over 10 times higher, and it's not being posted after two attempts here. If that isn't notable, I don't see how this is. Ian doesn't even seem to be breaking any records yet either, unlike Fiona. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So one bad decision to not post something should directly cause another bad decision to not post something. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recent Pacific typhoon (

Typhoon Nanmadol) also wasn't posted; the death toll there was lower, but Ian is still a lot lower than Fiona - and unlike Fiona I don't see what records it broke. The only difference I see here is that Ian hit the continental USA. We have long since recognized there is massive BIAS in Wikipedia - but we do little to change it. Another example is the Gimbi massacre of over 500 people. Why that war isn't an ongoing I don't know. Perhaps we should rename In the News to In the American News. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

lol wut? Do you not recall the tribute to some old rich white lady that was the Main Page for a day last week? What does Cuba have to do with that anyway? nableezy - 23:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know she was the most powerful woman in the world? Doesn't Nfitz know Fiona soaked the Maine part of America, too? Won't somebody think of just posting these? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - these ITN conversations and arguement are so ridiculous sometimes. Obviously notable (but how can we post it if we don't know how many people died???) and the article is good. --Torsodog^Talk 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your point - did you see how much coverage there was on USA television about her majesty; are you suggesting that this was posted (despite being ITNR) proves there is no BIAS? Cuba would be a stronger point if the nomination preceded landfall on the continental USA. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it looks like a pretty bad hurricane, and even if we don't end up including it on the main page, it's definitely impossible to deny that media coverage has ramped up significantly. Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Seems like it would've been nice if we had just put the hurricane season itself in ongoing... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Article looks really great! Definitely well set up for ITN, well done :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – In Florida, 2.5 million without power, one fatality reported. [13] [14] [15] – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested by multiple editors, can we get an admin to close this nomination as “no consensus” so it can be renominated in a day or two once the fatality total is higher? (
  talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Are you kidding? The nomination has only been up for a day. It's completely disingenuous to close this thread as "no consensus" especially when you yourself proposed an alt-blurb. And on top of all that, in the same breath mentioning that authorities are reporting "fatalities in the hundreds". If

  WP:MINIMUMDEATHS existed (which it doesn't) this would blow that threshold out of the water. Absolutely no to closing this as no consensus. God damn, let the process run a bit longer. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Calm yourself, mon ami – it's just weather. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am perfectly calm. Please don't ascribe demeanor to me based on written text. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. We're not renominating this after the storm has passed. The storm hit yesterday. There were days of mandatory evacuations and yesterday was wall-to-wall coverage of the hurricane here in the U.S. Number of fatalities, total financial cost of the damage, will be figured out in due time. Is this not a newsworthy event with a high quality article? What are we even doing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with previous two. No reason to close this now as the storm heads out to sea -- but is predicted to make a second U.S. landfall Friday. -- Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously…I get told the opposite thing EVERY TIME I write a new !vote comment. Not a good blurb, let’s wait until fatality count, its notable on Cuba only, 11 million power outages ain’t notable enough, 1 fatality ain’t notable, its notable. Dear God. I’m actually wishing I NEVER commented ever.

talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This is why you don't change your opinion based on what other people say. This is not a hivemind. Everyone comes to ITN with diverse differences of opinion on how this system should work. Speak for yourself and let an admin worry about interpreting consensus. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Support Alt Blurb for immediate posting.

talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

+1, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen here in a while. News is subjective and messy. We all have our own views on when a story becomes notable, and that's okay. There's always a lot of peer pressure to use whatever metrics everyone else is using to determine notability, but everyone should always feel welcomed to think differently.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per others. Was already notable enough after hitting Cuba, anything it does in Florida and beyond just makes it more so. Khuft (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major hurricane with massive international impacts and news coverage, and it's my view that waiting for some arbitrary number of deaths is, to say the least, poor ITN policy, so post the blurb and amend it as needful. Jusdafax (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I e added an altblurb to reflect the impact on Florida including death count. --Masem (t) 17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nit: Should it be "makes landfalls in Cuba and Florida" -- ?? -- Sca (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. And as a non-ITN regular, I have to say I find it rather incomprehensible that a hurricane that has impacted multiple countries isn't considered worthy of the main page, but a football championship in Australia is. Insert eyeroll emoji here! And I say this as a football fan and as someone who lives in Europe. MeegsC (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It no longer takes a crystal ball to know if Ian will be remembered as a catastrophic storm. The death toll is already rising and it's unfortunate that it's almost certain to go up.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hundreds are feared dead. 98.116.128.17 (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt2, we have a good enough sense of the impacts at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt2, pretty big deal, and it's rather embarrassing that it's not on ITN at this point. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The massive death toll predicted above has NOT occurred. If this is justified now, it should have been posted when it hit Cuba. Posting it now will say we think it only matters if it hits the USA. A really bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  HiLo48, you do see that all three proposed hooks mention Cuba? Saying we should have posted it on Tuesday but today is too late makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's NOT what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice the If this is justified now qualifier, which does change the meaning of what I thought I read. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I advocated for posting this when it hit Cuba from the very beginning. I still advocate posting it. ITN is a slow mover at times, and the storm doesn't discriminate as to which country or nationality it brings misery to. Your attempt to make this an issue of ethnic bias is in astoundingly poor taste. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention ethnicity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subtext in your message is about as bright as a neon billboard. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• HiLo, posting it now isn't being US-centric when nearly 90% (14 out of 16) of the confirmed deaths so far are in Florida.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This seems to be quite similar to the recent cases of Super Typhoon Nanmadol which hit Japan and Hurricane Fiona which hit Puerto Rico and Canada. They were nominated but not posted and so we should not post this either to maintain a
  WP:NPOV. Perhaps we should just put something like Tropical cyclones in 2022 into Ongoing as it seems like there's a continuous stream of these things. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ongoing would be short-sighted. September is the peak of Atlantic hurricane season, but there are no other active cyclones in the Atlantic right now. The closest one is Post-tropical cyclone 11, which is just going to dissipate in the subtropical ridge without doing anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it would be long-sighted because the timeline chart shows that there's always a significant cyclone somewhere on the globe. Just focussing on the Atlantic and then only posting when a hurricane hits the US is blatant Americentrism. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Andrew. Fiona killed 27 and we didn't post it; as far as I can see the death toll is currently less than that. If it significantly increases then that is a separate issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If a storm blacked out power in the entirety of say Belgium (around the same population as Cuba), would that not merit mention here? nableezy - 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, that is an inconvenience, not a disaster. Storms and other weather events knock power out all the time, so that us routine. Even at the given scale. Masem (t) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for an entire countries power grid to be taken down by a storm. This isnt a neighborhood blackout. And it is likewise not merely an inconvenience. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me if you are opposing or supporting User:Nableezy. Over 3 million people in Puerto Rico alone lost power with Fiona. A quarter of a million STILL don't have power. In Canada over 100,000 lost power in Nova Scotia (many still don't have it back) - and probably about another 100,000 in the other 4 impacted provinces. If those aren't notable, then neither is this. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I supported up above. Would have supported Fiona too. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all that really happened (which I know isn't the case) was just the power outage, that's the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods and noone around to hear it - it impacts a large number of people but just as other storm systems can impact wide number of people like heat waves or cold fronts - which would encourage editors to want to post these non-events. And until today, we really had no information on actual damages out of Cuba, in addition to the growing tallys from Florida. Now there's enough to start assessing this as a long term, enduring effect. ITN is reactive not proactive to news. Masem (t) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fiona has been renominated on September 24, meaning it is not archived until 00:00, 2 October UTC. Until that time, unless the nomination is closed, Fiona can still be posted. The original nomination was when Fiona’s death toll was 6. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So confused by all the recent “Oppose” !votes. Here is my opinion. Anyone who voted against the Cuba only blurb prior to US landfall made a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because Fiona wasn’t posted is making a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because it is US centric is making a wrong choice (but still right that some !votes appeared US centric). Basically, this is a waste of time and those who 100% opposed a quick closure of “no consensus” earlier, you basically just doomed this discussion automatically to a no consensus without a good prayer of being renominated/posted. God job y’all. (Even I am at fault for saying wait in the first place and not instantly adding a Cuba only blurb). Feels like everyone in this discussion has legit made some wrong choice which is dooming it to no consensus.

  talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's already a consensus to post. It's 15:5 support:oppose. Even taking into consideration that Wikipedia is not a vote, it's hard to deny that there is a consensus, and an overwhelming one at that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There seemed to be consensus at Fiona as well, and I don't see that posted either. Here's a thought - why not a single headline for both storms, which were near simultaneous. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, since Fiona is now posted on ITN.

  talk) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My thought exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- can an admin please post this? There is quite obvious consensus. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and this fiasco is a good example of why we should reform ITN and get rid of blurbs altogether. It doesn't matter if we say on the main page that Ian knocked out power to Cuba, or made landfall in Florida, or both, or neither. People aren't coming to the Wikipedia main page to find out the latest news about Ian or anything else. What does matter is that we have a link to Hurricane Ian on the main page, so that if people come here looking for that article, they get there faster, without having to search for it. All of ITN should be like RD: just links, no blurbs, no explanatory text, just links. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's actually a really good idea (with a caveat of explanatory text if the article name isn't obvious). Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The view counts show that readers are perfectly fine in finding the Hurricane Ian page without it being in ITN. This reenforces our standard that we want to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, and most of the opposes here were based on the fact that the full extent of the hurricane couldn't be documented until it passed over Florida, that is, the article quality wasn't going to be there until that happened. Masem (t) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Hilaree Nelson

Support, Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia

(Posted) RD: Sue Mingus

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

(Posted) RD: Joe Bussard

• Support, but what the hell is the comment above?? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The user seems to be a vandalism only account, or lacks competence. I've removed the message and given them a 4im. Anarchyte (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Kinda short, but I would have supported it if not for some unencyclopedic language like "had the collecting bug", which should be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Muboshgu: unencyclopedic language now removed. I've also added a bit more to his bio. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's fixed up and ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nord Stream leaks

Nominator's comments: Sabotage is widely suspected (the NS1 gas pipeline was, pre-invasion, one of the main routes for gas imports to Europe) by reliable sources, but probably not confirmed enough for a blurb Smurrayinchester 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose - Just one of those freak accidents, I suppose. It happens. No one died, so it's hard to weigh the significance of this. And we should be careful not to automatically impose a POV without concrete evidence. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. We have no idea what this is all about. If more facts come to light and a bigger story develops, it will probably get its own article and we'll see then. cart-Talk 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major political event of geopolitical significance and a possible escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that may bring in European powers. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as we are at "possible" and "may", this is not an event for ITN. I think we should stick to facts. cart-Talk 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a fact that there are three leaks in two pipelines alongside Denmark and that the Danish Prime Minister has said it may be sabotage and that Ukraine has accused Russia of doing it to aggress Europe. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a new article titled
  2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been created by Manvswow. Perhaps that article should be featured instead of the main one. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, It is not a major development now and still there is not enough information about it. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless proven to be wholly unrelated to the war, and still considered an act if sabotage, this either falls under the ongoing, or just the normal failing infrastructure department. --Masem (t) 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major infrastructure blowing up doesn't happen very often, so notable regardless of the cause. Even more so if it was sabotage, what increasingly seems like the most likely explanation. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  List of pipeline accidents suggests it happens quite often and most instances aren't notable by Wikipedia standards (for countless natural gas explosions, see List of explosions#2020s). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. So according to these lists this is the first case of an underwater pipeline blowing up. As well as the first case of two related pipelines near simultaneously blowing up. In other words, an exceedingly rare and thus notable event. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, probably gremlins. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a troll post or are you just childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; are you the long IP who removed it, the short one or both? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Both PM of Sweden and Denmark has held press briefings where they claim it's been an act of sabotage and not an accident. From a Global Politics perspective, this is a major geopolitical event. Swedish PM has spoken to the German Chancellor, Secretary General of NATO, Danish PM and EU commission. Manvswow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: NS2 never got final approval, and NS1 has been
  winding down for four months now. This just conforms to the trend, and needs greater significance for a post. 213.233.108.179 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. "Pipelines not in use get damaged, cause unknown" is not a notable enough item for ITN (Russia had stopped deliveries over NS1 weeks ago and NS2 was never in use). If (and only if) there are any further major developments because of these defects, we can then post those developments. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major event with large environmental consequences, all over the news. The Article featured should be
  KING  21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Much improved, Your Majesty! If I may implore just one thing more, might ye see that "multiple" be "three"? And yes, I'm being childish here, not trollish and entirely serious about the whole specification request part of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. As already noted, neither pipeline is in operation so political/economic impacts are likely off the table as things stand, and environmental impacts do not seem as great as suggested judging by the article. Probably worth waiting a few days to see if any of this changes but as is I don't see this as significant enough to post (save for the fact that this is getting a lot of coverage, but a lot of the buzz is just individuals playing the blame game. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Iffy. – Sca (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Norway's drone alert seems significant too. Reminds me of the time in the Spanish Civil War when mysterious submarines started sinking ships in the Med. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless proven to be an act of sabotage not related to the current war.
  talk) 12:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support – No longer iffy. Very widely covered, with several Baltic-bordering countries, plus the EU, condemning an apparent act of (state) sabotage. Favor Alt2 or something similar. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Suggest we avoid the verb "experience" as anthropomorphic. Inanimate objects don't 'experience' things, only sentient beings do. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not much volume going thru the pipeline even before this incident. So this is just another event in the slow death of the pipeline. Not important enough at this point to be its own ITN item independant from the ongoing Ukraine war item... Tradedia^talk 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – In Alt2, the word "state" would be optional. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• support unique, unusual, interesting, ACTUALLY IN THE NEWS. I'm kinda baffled by the responses of some of the other editors who oppose this on importance grounds (even though its the presence in mainstream news feeds that should be the actual criterion), but who then routinely vote for posting parliamentary elections in Nauru and similar exceedingly important news pieces.

Preceding posted by IP user 5.44.170.26. – Sca (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, who gives a flip what's going on in Nauru! But on a more serious note, what is the exact significance you speak of that you believe is being overlooked? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

When you speak of the rise in the gas price, are you speaking of LNG, or the stuff Americans call gas? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support EU, NATO say Nord Stream gas pipelines were sabotaged. Significant political, economic, and environmental impacts. Widely covered in the news.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No casualties. This seems to be just an extension of a war that is already ongoing. Shwcz (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - basically covered by the war ongoing item. nableezy - 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Only thing is the Baltic Sea is about a thousand kilometres from the battle fields of Ukraine; and no warring party claimed responsibility for this attack. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am

  KING  23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The subject is not mentioned in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article at all, so it is not covered there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats a failing of the article, but sources are connecting the two. Eg NYTimes including it in its Russia/Ukraine coverage, same for WSJ. nableezy - 15:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Excellent work on the article on this subject. The fact that "the incidents are likely to put a permanent end to both Nord Stream projects" seems to automatically make this ITN-appropriate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Regardless of if being a (potential) part of the War, it has also had a big impact on European economy (gas/electric prices) and a environmental impact. Pardy (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  It should be pointed out that at the point the issues were found, the lines had not be used for natural gas transport for months due to the way, the only leaks being from the residual NG left in the lines. Masem (t) 12:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Sweden finds fourth large leak. [16] [17] [18] – Sca (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major international news story with significant coverage, support per Sca, Pardy and Maplestrip. Opposes fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Agree with Jusdafax. Suggest we post this before it gets stale. – Sca (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A majority of users disagree with posting this, and any of them (including me) can say supporters fail to convince. Nobody seems to have given a reason why this should be independent of the current ongoing coverage of the war, with multiple sources connecting the two. nableezy - 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very widely & prominently covered. -- Sca (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportWidely covered and its impact on the energy market and prices is rather influential. Its not so much about the war between Russia and Ukraine war, but the impact on the energy market.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle, support once tags are taken care of. I agree with the copy editing tag, so that one should be fixed; but I think the clarification needed tag was already pretty clear. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wong Phui Nam

• Comment: The short paragraph in the Personal Life section on his family needs sourcing or trimming. (BLP vio?) --PFHLai (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed, given it isn't actually about the subject. CMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for removing. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (700+ words of prose), its formatting looks fine, it has footnotes at expected spots, and Earwig has nothing to complain about. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to you and Joofjoof for the additional cleanup. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CMD has greatly expanded the article to improve coverage of the subject's works and views. Joofjoof (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Souder

• Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 04:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The "Committee assignments" section has just bullet-points. No prose. No sources. No idea what time frames the subject had each assignment for (concurrent for all 8 of his terms in congress???) or what he did while holding each assignment. This section looks rather incomplete -- apparently a common problem for biographies of members of the US congress.--PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is the way they do them, and I agree that I don't like it either. I'll get to that in a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Muboshgu. I prefer more prose, but this is on par with other US congressmen's wikibio in recent memories. --PFHLai (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Naoero parliamentary election

Article: 2022 Nauruan parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nauru elects all 19 members of its parliament (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After the general election in Nauru, Russ Kun (pictured) is sworn in as President.
News source(s): Pina, Naoero Electoral Commission, RNZ
Credits:

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: It is quite difficult to write a blurb for a country with only 10000 inhabitants and no political parties. Article needs tons of work, nominating to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Support once expanded - I'd doubt the significance but I realize this is in
  talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Needs more prose, needs to have the links removed from the section headers per
  MOS:DTAB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support in principle but the article is 80% tables at the moment. The Kip (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now Sadly, even the tables are not complete - only four of the eight constituencies are currently included. See also here: Nauru election results. In addition, it seems that a new president was elected by the new parliament - it would be great to have more prose on that too. Khuft (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I propose we make an exception and skip this one per
  WP:IAR. Tradedia^talk 12:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  no. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we wouldn't post results for a mayoral election for a small city of 10,000 people. As cool as Nauru is, they are tiny. 1779Days (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and? You should know that Nauru is a sovereign nation. City ≠ Nation _-_Alsor (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Microstates, many of which are Pacific islands, are problematic. They are sovereign states, but their influence on the world stage is very limited because they're effectively the size of cities. I guarantee if Nauru, or Tonga, or Micronesia, or many other Pacific island states were on a mainland somewhere with the same population and land area they would not be sovereign nations. Whereas even a small country like Estonia for example has a much larger influence. I'd support changing the criteria to require a population of at least one million before its government change is ITNR. 1779Days (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm very aware this is ITNR, but I Oppose- not because it is a small country, but because this isn't sufficiently covered in reliable sources. No problem posting if this is sufficiently in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability - something I shouldn't have to say because the entire purpose of ITNR is to skip the notability question because change in government in a sovereign state is inherently notable. Oppose for now on quality. The most substantial section is the one which describes the electoral system, but there is little content about the election itself.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. The election is already over but there seems to be still no improvements to the article. Shwcz (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The new president has just been sworn in, so there is an altblurb. Joofjoof (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The quality of both the election article itself, and of the Russ Kun article, are currently sadly too low to merit posting. I hope someone might jump in and expand these articles! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle once it is fully updated. While I understand and support IARing certain ITNR topics, national election results should not be one of those. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Article looks good now, thanks for your great work. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's time to face it, those results from Yaren and Ubenide just aren't coming back. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support alt blurb if the article’s expanded Excluding the elections of certain countries seems like it’d lead to a slippery slope. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Article expanded textwise, and result tables are complete. Joofjoof (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Curbon7 for checking again. Pinging PFHLai and Stephen. Joofjoof (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Spencer^T•C 06:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Reed (American football)

• Support Article looks fine. Teemu08 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article is good and looks fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Cuban Family Code referendum

Nominator's comments: Important referendum for the LGBT community in Cuba. I might have to rewrite the blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inquiry Is this the first (non-overseas-territory) same-sex marriage legalization in the Caribbean? If so, this is notable. Also worth mentioning in the blurb that the same referendum legalized adoption by same-sex couples.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sort of. It is the first *independent* Caribbean island to legalize same-sex marriage. The other places in the Caribbean that have same-sex marriage have some association with Europe or the US. For example, Overseas France, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands; Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (Netherlands) See Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]