Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

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

Svante Pääbo in 2016
Svante Pääbo

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

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

Suggesting updates[edit]

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

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

Archives[edit]

October 6[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


Nobel Prize in Literature[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Nobel Prize in Literature (talk · history · tag) and Annie Ernaux (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Annie Ernaux is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, CNN, AP, BBC, France24
Credits:

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

 Davey2116 (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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[reply]
  • Opoose Ernaux's page lacks a sufficient update per WP:ITNCRIT:

    The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

    Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Ready) Nong Bua Lamphu attack[edit]

Article: 2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 36 people are killed during a mass shooting in Na Klang district, Thailand. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 36 people are killed in a mass shooting at a nursery in Nong Bua Lamphu Province, Thailand.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 37 people are killed in a mass shooting at a nursery in northern Thailand.
Alternative blurb III: ​At least 37 people – including 24 young children – are killed in a mass shooting in northern Thailand.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, AlJazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Last one happened in 2020 as it is rare. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support blurb Per nom. Article looks to be in good shape. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Support at a nursery, bloody hell. Juxlos (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support because it's easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
There isn't any doubt as to who did it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
They shot and killed themself, so there won't be any trials. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You can't libel the dead." -- Old saying in the news biz. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
when the 2022 cetinje shooting was posted, it looked like this, 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[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[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[reply]
  • Support for reasons stated above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]
    Agree. -- Sca (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
    Thank you, that resolved my concern. Masem (t) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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? the blurb 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[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[reply]
  • Support. Lots of casualties, shocking event, this deserves mention.VR talk 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support and ready! Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

October 5[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter)[edit]

Article: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Radio Times; British Comedy Guide
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (October 5); died on October 2. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Tommy Boggs[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel Prize in Chemistry[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Carolyn Bertozzi (talk · history · tag) and Morten P. Meldal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Carolyn Bertozzi (pictured), Karl Barry Sharpless and Morten P. Meldal for their work on click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Meldal's article needs some work and there's an orange-tagged subsection in Bertozzi's. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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[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[reply]
  • Support, Article is fine for a Nobel prize winner, Alex-h (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope, sourcing issues on two of them are blocking this. Masem (t) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Comment. @Masem: -- 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[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. Schwede66 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Meldal's page still has lots of unsourced text. They all seem to only have one sentence updates, failing WP:ITNCRIT:

    The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

    Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 4[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Shigeki Tanaka[edit]

Article: Shigeki Tanaka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yomiuri (in Japanese)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Japanese long-distance runner Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Jerry Vainisi[edit]

Article: Jerry Vainisi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Joan Hotchkis[edit]

Article: Joan Hotchkis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety; The Hollywood Reporter; Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (October 4); died on September 27. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Aaron Judge's 62nd Home Run[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: Aaron Judge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Aaron Judge hits his 62nd home run of the season breaking Roger Maris's record, set in 1961, of 61 home runs for most hit in a single American League season. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I am open to new blurb. I more just wanted to see what people thought of this news item itself. TartarTorte 00:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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[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[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[reply]
    Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
    The National League was always better at small ball. Levivich (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Oppose As pointed out, this is not the MLB record, just the AL record. --Masem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This is literally inside baseball. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Loretta Lynn[edit]

Article: Loretta Lynn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, AP, BBC, France24, Stereogum
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
    If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone [3] 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 [4] has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash GreatCaesarsGhost 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. [5]GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Comment – Longtime household name among fans of U.S. country music. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Donignacio, 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[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[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[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[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 other motives crack. Our motive is posting sourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Nobel Prize in Physics[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Alain Aspect (talk · history · tag) and John Clauser (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to Alain Aspect (pictured), John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their work in quantum mechanics. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Aspect's article is ready to go. Clauser and Zeilinger are about 75% there in terms of sourcing. Masem (t) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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[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[reply]
    Thank you! I hope I can be of help to this project. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
    Your right. Over 20 awards, and none of them cited. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Masem who iirc has created composite images in the past. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Nobel prize is a major event and comes in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    that has never been questioned. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. Schwede66 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
  • Oppose All currently fail WP:ITNCRIT with only one-line updates to the pages:

    The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

    Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

  • North Korea restricts movement due to COVID-19. The announcement was made minutes after it launched a missile over Japan. (RFA)

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Kim Jung Gi[edit]

Article: Kim Jung Gi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Daily Mail
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Acclaimed comic book artist. CoatCheck (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Article has multiple citation needed tags. The "Bibliography" section is entirely unsourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tiffany Jackson[edit]

Article: Tiffany Jackson (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: William K. Brewster[edit]

Article: William K. Brewster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ron Franz[edit]

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eamonn McCabe[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

RD: Jerzy Urban[edit]

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Comment Urban served as official spokesman of the Polish Communist regime in 1981-89. Infamous for press conference after the introduction of martial law on Dec. 13, 1981, during which 100 dissidents were killed. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment a key figure in Poland. I have expanded the article a bit, ultimately it doesn't really reflect just how much he was generally loathed in Poland, even among those who secretly enjoy the satire of Nie. More references needed regarding his early life. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
probably not blurb-worthy on en-wiki, but a photo may be appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IAR aside, I thought we had a policy that photos are for blurbs only. The most recent discussion I could find- [8] GreatCaesarsGhost 21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – RD only. Generally unknown outside PL. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support RD no blurb - former spokesperson of Polish Communist Regime CR-1-AB (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now Way too many unsourced paragraphs, including the entire "Court case for offence to John-Paul II" section. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Bosnian general election[edit]

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

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

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

  • Comment – Bosnia is fairly sui generis as a political system but the elections of the three Members of the Presidency are politically more significant than the election of the House of Representatives. "Winning a plurality of votes" is fairly insignificant as Bosnia and Herzegovina is like Belgium or Lebanon, where the parties are not directly competing with each other. JackWilfred (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment agree with JackWilfred. Maybe a better blurb would highlight the 3 people that were elected to the Presidency? AltBlurb proposed. Khuft (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Much better. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As usual, the "Preliminary results" section needs prose and a section on Reactions/Aftermath needs to be added. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think there shouldn't be a picture, due to the obvious ethnic implications (we don't want to be seen as preferring one ethnic group). Curbon7 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point. Although the image can be rotated or someone can make a collage with three (which I don’t know how to do and I preferred to put the pic of the only woman). In any case, we are in days of Nobel prizes, so it would hardly stand out many days a photo of the new members of the presidency in the event that this nomination succeeds. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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[reply]
Support AltBlurb and Oppose picture, as per above. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Bulgarian snap parliamentary election[edit]

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

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

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

  • 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[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[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine[edit]

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

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

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

  • I guess 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is not bad as a list article, but it's a bit stubby for my liking. Pääbo's article looks good, though, so I will probably support this soon if the former is expanded a bit more :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The "Laureate" section of the Nobel article needs sources and a "Reactions" section should be added. In Pääbo article, there are tags to be fixed and sources to be added in some paragraphs. But in general both bolded articles are fine and will be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would remove the entire "unofficial possible nominees" section because this is just speculations - or at least condense it to a single-paragraph prose instead of a table with flags and all that. The laureate himself should be the sole bolded article, and it is good to go as soon as the cn tags get fixed. Tone 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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[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[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[reply]
  • Comment Last year (and past?), we just linked to the general Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine page.[9].—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. A few unsourced sentences and a couple of [citation needed] 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[reply]
  • Pull Only paltry one-sentence update about the Nobel prize at the bolded Svante Pääbo, failing WP:ITNCRIT (emphasis added):

    The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

    Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Brazilian general election[edit]

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


Article: 2022 Brazilian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Lula (PT) wins the 1st round of the general election but has to face Bolsonaro (PL) in a 2nd round run-off. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Lula da Silva of the Workers Party wins a plurality in the Brazilian general election, and will face a runoff with incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro of the the Liberal Party.
News source(s): The Guardian, Washington Post, AP, AlJazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Heading to the 2nd round. Article in good shape. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would it make more sense to just post the result of the run-off once it happens instead of double posting? Curbon7 (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Post the second round results. The first round results of the French presidential election wasnt posted. Only the Second round. Haris920 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The results from the first round are not ITN/R when there is a run-off. We post when the winner is known, so wait until that happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question Since this was a general election, covering also the totality of the Chamber of Deputies, parts of the Senate, the governors and state assemblies, shouldn't we at least post the results of the election to the Chamber of Deputies? The presidential election can then be posted on 30. October. Article wouldn't be ready yet - results of the legislative part of the elections hasn't been updated yet. Khuft (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Wait for the result of the run off. Then we can post the president and any legislative information relevant at that time.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nominator comment the ongoing nomination was closed and opposed as it was said that first round should be posted as a blurb. Now this nomination is being opposed too which I find inconsistent; in that case surely the ongoing nomination should be re-considered. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neither of those things is appropriate. It is not "ongoing" in the usual sense, where there are daily updates to post. This is just a two-part election, and we'll post the result once the second part is complete.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually I would agree, however: most elections do not have daily political violence in the lead up nor the real possibility of an armed coup. Furthermore most elections do not have 156 million eligible voters spanning a large percentage of a whole continent. If anything this result will increase the amount of incidents in between rounds. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a valid point, but would those day-to-day events be significant enough to feature on the main page? Keep in mind we have ongoing wars with thousands of deaths that never make the main page. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a coup then of course that it would be considered, regardless of everything else. So far, however, the only thing we got are leaked private conversations (which were about personal preferences and not actual plans), and excessive precautions. Lula asked the US to immediately recognize the winner (a part that the article did not mention), and the US accepted, for fear of an incident similar to that of Trump... and because it's the standard procedure, anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If violence is part of the significance of this item, then it should probably be included in the blurb. It would be nice if we could quantify the violence. This does warm me up for an ongoing spot. That being said, the violence should probably be quantified better in the lede of the article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: Do it when the second election is held and we have a definitive winner. Otherwise, we would have to post this twice this month. And that time, please use the full names, "Lula Da Silva" and "Jair Bolsonaro", not just "Lula" and "Bolsonaro". Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I definitely agree about using full names. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – From what I've seen, Lula's success has come as a surprise, possibly significant enough in itself for a blurb – especially since Brazil is far and away South America's most populous country. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it's the other way. Polls before the election announced that Lula would win by a landslide, way ahead of Bolsonaro, and even enough to win without a runoff election. Although he won, he did so by a lower margin than expected, as Bolsonaro got more votes than expected. He was even wining when the first partial results were announced! Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh.  ;-) ... But still seems significant. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

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

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Douglas Kirkland[edit]

Article: Douglas Kirkland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; CTV News (Canadian Press); Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Shirley Englehorn[edit]

Article: Shirley Englehorn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LPGA Tour
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Laurence Silberman[edit]

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Sacheen Littlefeather[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

RD: Darshan Dharmaraj[edit]

Article: Darshan Dharmaraj (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protests[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Oppose because the blurb fell off ITN 3 days ago, and we didn't post it to Ongoing when that happened. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Stephen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Article is being actively maintained and the ongoing protests are clearly still of an appropriate level of significantness. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support definitely ongoing and constantly in the news Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The protests are still ongoing & still in the news. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Protests are still ongoing indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted as ongoing – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. Significant. [11]Sca (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) 2022 London Marathon[edit]

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

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

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

  • Comment This is on WP:ITNR, so no comparisons to Berlin needed (which incidentally was only posted indirectly because of the world record).—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results. Abcmaxx, if an editor eventually updates the article with a race summary, could you add that updater to the nomination and mark the nomination as updated? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the race summary section hasn't been updated, though; in fact, that section is still using future tense. for comparison, this is how the summary for last year's race looked like when the associated blurb was posted to itn. dying (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

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


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

(Closed) Ramzan Kadyrov[edit]

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


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

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

2022 Latvian parliamentary election[edit]

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

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

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

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

(Closed) Ongoing: Brazilian general election[edit]

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


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

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

(Posted) 2022 World Rally Champions[edit]

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

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

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

(Closed) Ongoing: Hurricane Ian[edit]

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


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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Ian is about to be displaced from the ITN box by two nominations that are getting ready to be posted. I propose that it go to ongoing while the search for survivors and remains is ongoing. The death toll has been rising quite a bit and it's expected to continue rising as searches continue pending the receding of water. NoahTalk 02:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Hurricane that was and isnt a hurricane anymore therefore not ongoing. These happen all the time and yes people get caught up in them... It already got a blurb which is more than what the average cyclone gets (even when it is a cat 4-5 storm hitting settled areas).✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." - We did the same thing for Idai in 2019 for the same reason, which didn't roll off as fast as this storm is going to. This is still very much in the news as it is feared that hundreds may be dead. We should keep it as an ongoing while these searches are turning up dozens of bodies a day. NoahTalk 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty sure natural disasters don't go in ongoing. Per 4amking, it isn't even a hurricane anymore so there is zero point in adding it to ongoing. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We have done it before. See no reason why we should kick an item that is clearly in the news off the ITN box. The storm itself is dead, yes, but the search for remains and survivors is very much ongoing and being covered in the news. There have been thousands of rescues and dozens of bodies uncovered each day. NoahTalk 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      For that storm, at the time it fell off ITN, it was still a storm and still causing destruction. Ian has petered out, no one is expected it to cause further damage, so it would not be required for ongoing in terms of covering the long-tail of aftermath. Masem (t) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't posted to ongoing because it was still a storm (it was only a remnant low by that time). It was posted (and survived a removal nom[17] after it had fully dissipated) because of the long-tail. Perhaps the better argument here is the scale of Idai was larger. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost:I wouldn't say that's the case. It's simply that southeastern Africa is less developed and has worse infrastructure and no way to deal with the aftermath of a storm. The days of a hurricane killing thousands in the mainland US are over because of infrastructure improvements and the government's ability to handle the aftermath of a storm. The scale of impact is similar, but less people died as a result of the US being able to evacuate and rescue people whereas that was not the case in Africa with Idai. There's still 10,000 people unaccounted for and a massive hunt for remains and survivors going on in Florida. The scale of the search operations are quite similar, however, less people will die in this case. NoahTalk 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. NoahTalk 21:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now I'd rather just expand ITN to five blurbs for a few days than move Hurricane Ian to ongoing. I'll revisit this if it looks like three blurbs are going to be posted imminently. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Is it ongoing? Yes. Is it notable and in the news? Yes. Significant impact? Yes. Article quality? Fine. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The article states "Hurricane Ian was'..." and "Dissipated: 2 October 2022". So no, it’s not longer ongoing. The fact that I will no longer be in MP is circumstantial. It is what it is as new entries have been included. That doesn’t make it any less noticeable (this is why it was posted days ago). Just do not overload the Main Page either with it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the article is for the hurricane itself, which is no longer ongoing. i think it makes more sense to keep updates on search and rescue to the current events tab, which is the norm for most disasters natural and otherwise. e.b. (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - We've already posted a blurb on the impact of the hurricane.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – All over but the shouting. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 1[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Sylvia Wu[edit]

Article: Sylvia Wu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death reported on this date. TJMSmith (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Article: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [18]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

(Posted) 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium stampede[edit]

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

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

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

September 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


RD: Rick Redman[edit]

Article: Rick Redman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [22]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Marvin Powell[edit]

Article: Marvin Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [23]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Support good to go.
_-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dan Wieden[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Antonio Inoki[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Oppose — I'm sure others will bring up the usual bulldada concerning the mere presence or absence of citations, so I'll address another concern. The most glaring problem with the article is the coverage of his professional wrestling career, which is more a scattershot series of unconnected statements than an accessible overview. It provides little to no hint of Inoki's global impact or his approximately two-decade stint as the top star of one of the planet's biggest wrestling promotions, both of which were significant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bulldada? -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    [24] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now I agree with RadioKAOS. Aside from the citations it needs, the article is also seriously lacking in content. I was surprised to see how short it is right now, considering Inoki's considerable stature in professional wrestling both in Japan and internationally. For example, there's only seven paragraphs in a section that covers over 30 years of his career. The article needs a lot of work, and if that could be done, I'd support a RD listing. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - If it wasn't for the amount of work the article needs, I'd say that Inoki might be blurb-worthy. He was a massive cultural figure in Japan and probably the most famous wrestler there of his era. He also founded what is currently the biggest wrestling company in Japan and was a long-time politician. Does being one of biggest name wrestlers in a country where wrestling is immensely popular qualify? I don't know, but it's probably worth a discussion. --