Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NorthernFalcon (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 15 September 2022 (→Roger Federer retirement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Joseph Aoun Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year vacancy. An attack on the presidential palace in N'Djamena, Chad, results in 19 deaths. A series of wildfires in Southern California, United States, leaves at least 24 people dead and destroys more than 12,000 structures. A 7.1-magnitude earthquake hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Jean-Marie Le Pen John S. Hunkin Bob Veale Charles M. Roessel Mike Rinder Peter Yarrow Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

September 15

RD: Asad Rauf

• Nominated by Oriental Aristocrat (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A bit of help required to source some text and it will be good to go. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Roger Federer retirement

• Nominated by Ixtal (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Seems worth placing ITN as ostensibly one of, if not the, best players in tennis history — Ixtal ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Was unsure of who to name as updaters, feel free to suggest. — Ixtal ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm less opposed to sports retirements than most editors, but after the Brady incident we should probably hold off on posting any. The Kip (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was against retirement blurbs for Tom Brady and Serena Williams, and am against them still today, even for legitimate GOAT contenders. When Federer (or Nadal or Djokovic) passes away, in many decades time, I shall probably support a blurb then, if I'm still around on the planet myself!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Much like The Kip above, I'm concerned that these sorts of retirements don't end up lasting forever, and I doubt we want to run a blurb announcing their return to the sport. Anarchyte (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per growing consensus that the sporting retirements we did post were a mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Serena Williams' retirement was a SNOW close less than two weeks ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - Oh, I so badly want to support this one! This guy is damn near top of his field in an internationally-played sport. Unfortunately, as stated above, sports retirements are very easily reversible.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• oppose he was hardly playing lately. Had he retired after winning a notable tournament, why not, but like this I oppose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose has hardly been playing the past few years, and sports retirements in general seem to be too prone to changes to post. AryKun (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Think we've all quietly agreed sports retirements, whomever the GOAT, aren't worth posting. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait he announced that the retirement will take place next week. Wait until the retirement actually occurs before nominating/posting. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

September 14

RD: John Gamble (baseball)

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 14); died on September 1. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Earl J. Silbert

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 14); died on September 6. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Harry Landis

• Nominated by TrottieTrue (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: British actor with long career and numerous credits TrottieTrue (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality, needs ref improvement per banner. - Indefensible (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irene Papas

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Greek actress and singer, a Good Article - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support article seems good to go. _-_Alsor (talk)
• Posting, excellent article. --Tone 09:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• I remember discussion on Vangelis, I think, here where it was said that she fits the threshold for blurb more. Now that id posted, propose blurb. Golden Lion Award, Berlin International Film Festival win, starred in Zorba the Greek film. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  All I said was she's near his fame level. A bigger star than the president, PM or sex tape drummer. Quite good actress. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Old Woman Dies, end of story. If she's a true household name, it'll draw its own attention in RD. No objection to a photo, if that's the main goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan re-names capital city to Astana

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Romeowth (talk · give credit) and Rosguill (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is unique and I believe encyclopedic (as well as political). The last I can think of such an event is St Petersburg > Leningrad > St Petersburg and took over decades rather than 3 years. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

It's back now to Astana with a WP:MOVP protection. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We didn't post the name change in 2019 and, as it hasn't stuck, it's easiest to pass over their transitory mistake. Name changes are a headache for Misplaced Pages and so we shouldn't encourage them. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you really think people are worried about moving articles around on Misplaced Pages when they're considering a major geopolitical change? 174.113.161.1 (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm unimpressed by our coverage of this temporary namechange. I do agree that the initial namechange in 2019 was probably the more significant event; this seems to merely be a return to 'normalcy.' The three-year namechange is an interesting subject, and if it had a high-quality article on its own I might've supported a blurb. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per TRM, Andrew. Devoid of impactfulness. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

September 13

(Posted) RD: Fred Callaghan

• Updated and nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: English footballer Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

RD: Susan L. Solomon

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 13); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Starr

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Closed again) Blue Origin NS-23 mission failure

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.

• Nominated by BilledMammal (talk · give credit)
• Created by Liljimbo (talk · give credit)

• Comment Oppose – A non-event. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Article almost exclusively is about the failure of the mission and only briefly mentions mission objectives. I think if we are going to post this, ITN/R or not, there must be more information in the article about the potential impacts. All we have currently is that the booster was destroyed and the mission presumably delayed. What are the the impacts of this failure that have this rise to a ITN level of concern? I do believe most readers would question the exact significance of the failure of a non-crewed sub-orbital flight such as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Added some additional information, but significance is presumed through ITNR. It is also the first time that a New Shepard rocket has had complete mission failure. BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Perhaps if it was manned or the first mission, but neither, so unimportant. The Kip (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:IAR -- Sca (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances; The Kip's position appears to reject the majority of stories that would be posting under this part of ITNR, which means the circumstances aren't exceptional and IAR doesn't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for affirming your faithful adherence to the sacred ITN Catechism. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  If we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think this is a rare instance in which the encyclopedia is not best served by inclusion of this story.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @WaltCip: Previously, you said I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Has your opinion changed? BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm never too old to learn, and in this case, I got a clue and determined that my previous opinion was wrong. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - one thing to keep in mind here, is that it was a sub-orbital rocket, not designed or planned to orbit the earth. Looking at other launch failures that were featured; Soyuz MS-10 in 2018 had a crew on board, that survived ballistic re-entry, and were recovered over 400 km from the pad. The Falcon 9 carrying AMOS-6 (satellite) in 2016 blew up on the pad in a massive explosion, all but destroying LC-40 and was felt over 60 km away! In this case we have only a sub-orbital rocket, no large explosion, and the capsule landed safe and intact. The booster didn't land successfully - but the article doesn't really say much as to it's fate, other than it hit the ground; elsewhere I've seen reports that it was providing telemetry until it's unsuccessful landing. So no humans, not orbital, payload survived, no damage to the launch pad, and no information about the booster landing zone. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Reluctant Regrettable Support I have no idea what an unknown number of people were thinking when they agreed every launch failure with enough details to update an article is automatically good enough, but they did and the article's updated, so let's just get this subjectively bad idea over with. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- it's ITNR. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is, so it needs to be posted, otherwise the point of ITNR is moot. --Rockstone 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  ITNC entries that are based on ITNR can still be debated if that specific entry is important enough to post, just we don't want people rehashing the "is the ITNR appropriate?" here on ITNC. Masem (t) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't follow. The phrase "each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" seems to preclude any discussion about whether the event is important enough to post. --Rockstone 00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Not every second time, not every other time, just every time. All anyone who doesn't like it but wants to follow the rules can hope to accomplish is to convince the room the article isn't "appropriately" updated (whatever that means). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  We have, in the past, skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons that were beyond quality issues. The point that we have this allowance to skip a singular ITNR instance, as long as we aren't wasting the effort about the base ITNR criteria. Major crashes of spacecraft can be significant, but you can see by the way the news is covering this that this crash of an unmanned commercial rocket wasn't really a major event. Masem (t) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Neither are plenty of R things. They don't need to be, they just need to recur and constitute an appropriate update to a nominated article without orangetags. If you can think of a good reason unrelated to importance to skip this one, I'd love to get on board, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  If it is true that we have skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons unrelated to quality or whether it actually satisfies ITNR criteria, then there's something wrong, and we should change our policies. If ITNR criteria can simply be discarded because we don't like it or think it's appropriate, then we might as well just get rid of ITNR entirely. This being said, I'd support updating ITNR criteria for launches to require that the failure occur with a manned launch. -- Rockstone 04:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. Right at the top it says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Then the wording needs to be changed, as that is not what it currently says. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per ITN/R and marked ready. Update is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm removing the ready tag, it may be technically ready to post but there isn't even a remote degree of consensus to do so. There's a grand total of six votes overall, and it's 50/50 between oppose and support. The Kip (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  57/43. You can assume the nominator supports. In addition, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Opposes which disregard the WP:ITNR guidelines are invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Adding it back. There's no need to form consensus for notability, since it's ITN/R. I've yet to see anyone oppose on the basis that the article is not in an acceptable state. -- Rockstone 03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Can this really be described as "complete mission failure" if most of the payload was recoverable? - Indefensible (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality and also notability. Quality-wise, per DarkSide830, it lacks information on the mission beyond the details of its failure. Also oppose on notability per those above. ITN/R is not a suicide pact, and there is no part of the project where IAR doesn't apply (it's even one of the five pillars). Per above, this is one of those rare cases where something that's ITN/R nonetheless fails to reach the significance bar. It's a relatively insignificant story that won't materially affect that company's programme or anything else in the longterm, and our readers wouldn't particularly be well served by its inclusion at ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also think that ITNR is not a must. This was a failure of a rather routine mission that did not carry crew (luckily) or some particularly important equipment, like JW telescope (also luckily). We should probably amend ITNR criteria. I suggest this is sent to DYK instead, the article is decent enough. --Tone 08:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this falls under WP:ITNR; launch failures are listed under the "space exploration" heading but this was a suborbital launch, and thus it's dubious to what degree this counts as "space exploration". Including this only begs the question of where the line is drawn. Would a failed weather balloon launch count? I agree with the sentiment that this item would be better suited to DYK. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll buy that, this was space trucking, Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the launch hadn't failed it terminates above Kármán line, which means that it is space exploration; weather balloons don't go anywhere near that high. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Altitude aside, cargo can't explore, especially when only going somewhere its shipping company has gone 22 times before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  The cargo was experiments, intended to be run in space. Such experiments are part of space exploration. In addition, look at our article on space exploration. Reaching the Kármán line is considered part of it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Such experiments are part of space research, no doubt, which I guess might pass for exploration in an inner intellectual sense. And maybe that T-2 Mission Arroway could have felt some base rush of actual firsthand pioneering. Tough to say, my furred friend, but I'm not flipping twice on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Just as a note, the original discussion which led to the space rules in their present form is here, from 2011. This was a reduction in scope from a much broader "any space flight" that was there before, but it actually looks like the version that was written as a result of that discussion is not quite the one that had consensus in the discussion. The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures, including those that weren't orbital, but that's what was inserted. I'd suggest revisiting this ASAP to be honest.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The WP:ITN/R entry is "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". This is poorly drafted as all nominations obviously require such sufficient details. And so the only meaningful bit is "launch failures". But these are commonplace – the repeated launch failures of Artemis 1 are a fresh example. We therefore have to discuss whether a particular failure is significant or not and so this shouldn't be ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Same response as to sca above; if we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. It says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The only way we can use our common sense and establish whether this is an exception is to discuss the details of the case. That's what we're doing here. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except it is very unambiguous. If it is not a rigid rule, then it shouldn't say Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page and Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  But that applies to any guideline (or indeed policy) anywhere on the project. Most such "rules" are worded in clear language that would appear at first sight to discount exceptions, yet IAR applies if appropriate nonetheless. And the idea that IAR would be a principle applied right across the project, covering almost all of our content and conduct conventions, but somehow not apply in one single hallowed corner of the Wiki known as ITN/R, seems a bit ludicrous when you think about it. For most purposes ITN/R is a "rigid rule", but occasional exceptions apply. The bottom line is that if enough editors feel that there are special reasons why a particular item should be IARed, as appears to be the case here, then a consensus doesn't form and it doesn't get posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most other guidelines aren't written with the same strength of language. In addition, IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances. Given that the reasons for rejecting this launch failure would apply to most launch failures, IAR can't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTLAW explains that "...it is not governed by statute ... the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." So, what we have here is an evolving consensus and WP:ITN/R seems to require further adjustment to reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Lets see how this closes, but if it does close against posting then you are right; ITNR (and Misplaced Pages:In the news#Sports and other recurring events, and the template above) would need adjustment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines are important. Any change must be made conservatively and slowly while seeking the input of others. A driveby discussion on a matter such as this is not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline. Noah 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's ITN/R... It has been said before. If you don't like it being on ITN/R, then start a discussion on the talkpage to remove or amend the topic. Notability is assumed for anything on the ITN/R list and thus it's notability is not a question here. The only issue we can debate on an ITN/R topic is quality, which the article meets since it has been updated. I will note that the ITN/R guideline has a broader level of consensus then any discussion here so we can't just override it. Drive by discussions are not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline itself. Therefore, this must be posted whether we like it or not.

Noah 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Discussions at ITN/R seem to get less attention than discussions here and it's usually a subset of the same editors. For example, we've been here before with Proton M. That nomination failed to launch so there was then a discussion at ITN/R. That fizzled too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I remind you of WP:NOTBURO. Also: Do you yourself believe that this story would be significant for posting on ITN, regardless of whether or not it's a recurring item? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance, noting Amakurus point about this not being an orbital launch. Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – A day later, 3:1 consensus appears to have formed against posting. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Opposes which disregard the guidelines are invalid --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment in addition to being WP:ITNR there is a "please do not" above which reads "oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.". Not posting this at this point is anarchy. Either the guidelines exist or they do not. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Consensus is trending away from posting unmanned launch failures on WT:ITN. Even if this item were "ready" as you keep insisting that it is, it would be pulled almost immediately after posting. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I think you could argue whether or not this qualifies as ITNR; if it is, then ITNR rules (again) need to be redone in regards to spaceflight. Either way, this is a non-event in which an unmanned ship wasn't destroyed and didn't hurt anyone. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Ready this item is ready and currently an ITN/R item. The opposes above are invalid as a result. There is discussion about the inclusion of this category at WT:ITN but as it stands, at the time of nomination, the item was listed. It simply needs to be posted, and it can push out the nothingburger weeks old earthquake story. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  No it's not. Consensus against, for obvious reasons. -- Sca (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Even if what you say about ignoring the opposition is true (which it isn't, because there's a significant consensus to IAR here), the article still doesn't satisfy the quality criterion, per the issues raised by DarkSide830 and myself regarding completeness. There is almost no discussion on the purpose and objectives of the mission.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Does it really meet ITN User:Kicking222? I don't think most anticipated that rule to be used for non-orbital launches, or used when the capsule landed safely. What's next - sounding rockets? Also, there seems to be a growing consensus at WT:ITN/R to remove it. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose we should follow the spirit of the guideline and not blindly obey the letter of it. As it's worded at the moment some kid's science project rocket could make ITN if it didn't work properly. I'd say it's fairly clear the guideline is meant to apply to satellite launches and exploration missions, applying it to an uncrewed suborbital launch is clearly not what was intended. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:C9F4:ECC4:7875:7876 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Yet another reason why ITN/R needs to die. It can only be used to suppress consensus, as is being attempted here. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment I personally believe ITN/R needs to stick around, as certain bad-faith editors have fought tooth and nail to prevent some common-sense news items from being posted; that said, considering this would normally fall under it, perhaps it does need to be pruned a bit. The Kip (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose It being significant enough for ITNR brings me in, but IAR is a thing and this should involve some common sense. ITNR shouldn’t always be automatically on, and I agree ITNR discussions tend to fizzle out. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Four admins have weighed in with oppose !votes for this ITNR candidate. At least two of them can be said to be 'posting admins' in that they have assessed consensus for at least one item on ITN/C; Tone, in particular, is a regular participant in this space. At any time they could have chosen to close the discussion and posted this item. If this is a candidate that we "post whether we like it or not", then why are our entrusted admins not posting it whether we like it or not? The answer lies in our five pillars, and it's the reason we entrust them to make decisions.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- this is ITNR, so it should be posted, and I have no idea why it hasn't yet, beyond simple I don't like it. This being said, the criteria should change so that only failures of beyond sub-orbital or crewed missions should be posted. That'd solve this problem. --Rockstone 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of discussions on the talk page about this and ITN/R right now, it would not be right to post this because of ITN/R and then change ITN/R so that this nom would no longer qualify under ITN/R. Better to wait rather than rush and immediately have a posting that is no longer supported by an outdated guideline. - Indefensible (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Remind me of this ITN/R ambivalence for the next singing contest or soccer tournament nomination plz. But also, this doesnt merit being posted as ITN. nableezy - 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with taking a look at some of these awards ceremonies for axing next. Seems less and less people care about them anymore and they certainly aren't as impactful as natural disasters, elections, or the deaths of globally important individuals. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support – The article looks solid, so we have nothing to lose in featuring this. I agree with the sentiment that the ITN/R item is poorly constructed and I would like to see it amended. This launch being a sub-orbital flight with on-board science cargo makes it more comparable to an unmanned zero-gravity flight. But hey, we got a proper crash here and it's of wider interest, so I don't mind seeing it featured. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Ready this ITN/R item is ready to be posted. The notability opposes are invalid. Removal of the ready tag is vandalism. Post it already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Several ITN active admins disagree with you. Please stop. WP:IAR. 47.16.96.33 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should try Misplaced Pages:Understanding IAR instead of just bandying it about to get your way. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  At the related discussion to either remove this from ITNR completely, or to reword the ITNR rule to exclude failures like this, there are at the moment 14 people wanting to change ITNR so this no longer would be included, vs. 1 person wanting to keep this in ITNR: and that one person happens to be you. It looks to me as if there is much more reason to see your repeated "ready" claims as WP:POINT disruption, than there is to claim that the removal of the "ready" is actual vandalism. Fram (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Come on, we don't want to escalate this to ANI. But this is the direction we're going if you can't let it go. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ready item was listed as ITN/R when nominated, and is sufficiently updated. Opposes which disregard WP:ITNR are invalid, as such removing the ready tag and premature closing are vandalism. It needs to be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is literally the fourth time you've marked it ready in spite of consensus being otherwise and an ongoing discussion on ITNR trending toward removing unmanned launches. Let it go, if anything it's you committing the vandalism. The Kip (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, I'm literally just following the actual guidelines as written. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Pulled after posting as blurb) Blurb/RD: Jean-Luc Godard

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Pioneering filmmaker. Quite a few references missing, as there are completely unsourced sections. Filmography page poorly sourced. Mooonswimmer 09:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The issues mentioned in the nom exist and need to be fixed, though the filmography page's condition should not hold this back it should be brought upto par as well. Support when the issues are resolved and also support blurb here, with the extraordinary influence in cinema that Godard has had. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support Tried to fix the most glaring issues and main tags. Also support due to the nature of the death which was not apparent when it was first reported. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Widely covered by Eng. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb/photo RD - passes Mandela/Thatcher test, post as blurb/photo RD if article quality is sufficient for posting. 130.75.182.245 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  He is not even remotely close to the "Mandela/Thatcher test". I hadn't even heard of this guy prior to seeing this nomination. Which obviously doesn't prove anything in itself, but it does strongly suggest to me that he's not a Thatcher or Mandela. Surprising as it may seem, I'd heard of those guys by the time of their deaths.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  He was as transformative in his field as Mandela or Thatcher, probably more so. We've posted far more insignificant film celebrities before (e.g. Connery, Fisher). He was acclaimed as one of the most influential filmmakers ever by several academic and popular sources. There was no such commentary for the other names I mentioned (in their sub-field of acting). If your "standards" are based solely on your personal opinion, I'd say that's no standard at all. 130.75.182.245 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support RD Article is of decent enough quality, death does not require additional explanation that a blurb would provide, so RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Except that a blurb would provide the extra information that it was an assisted suicide.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would be open to seeing this blurbed if everything in the article was properly cited. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb - incredibly important filmmaker, and bottom two blurbs on homepage are over a week old, so no issue pushing one of them out. ‡ El cid, el campeador 14:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Article needs ref work in three big sections of the article. Once the issues have been addressed, I'd support a blurb. Article now in good shape. Definitely influential enough for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb One of the most important filmmakers of all time. The Kip (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb on quality fixes I would recommend fleshing out the legacy section which should be easy with the long form obits coming in. Masem (t) 17:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Definitely not in the same class as Tarkovsky but still a significant and highly influential filmmaker. I’d like to see more death blurbs for film directors.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb no where near the impact of Gorbachev or the recognition of Elizabeth II no media circus absolutely no reason at all to bump a blurb out of the box for this. 100% what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• It is a widely covered and reported death, media circus and bumping other blurbs should not be a criterion. Besides the unnatural reason for the death making the act itself further notable. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Bumping blurbs out of the box and looking like an obit was the whole reason RD was created so it is in fact a most critical criteria --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  We cannot control when two rather significant and influential people die, just as we can't control when disasters happen back to back. That's the nature of news. Masem (t) 01:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb. A hugely influential director, certainly one of the most important in post-war Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb once issues are addressed. This is somebody highly influential and who was absolutely at the top of their field. You could even argue the death itself is notable as Godard may be the most high-profile person yet to die by assisted suicide. I would suggest "dies by assisted suicide" as the wording rather than "commits", though, as that wording is contentious. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Both wordings are contentious. That's the whole reason people continually pit one against the other, instead of going with a third option. To me, he "kills himself". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think "dies by" is a better option here to avoid any contention. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  If "dies by" is supposed to avoid contention, why would Googling "died by suicide" bring up far more stories about the contest itself than stories about particular suicides? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I supported that option as quite a few dicts do not recommend the usage (e.g. , ), MOS:SUICIDE also provides for the alternative usage. Personally I am not opposed to either. Gotitbro (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Pardon the expression, but I got it, bro. There are two sides to this either/or issue. Anyone on either has valid reasons to me, but don't tell me it's not worth fighting for! From the outside, everyone knows that much is "true enough", eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Photo RD There's almost no story here, it's an honour. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, oppose blurb--definitely not meeting the blurb threshold in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Think it's good to go now. Fixed the glaring referencing issues (also a more recent image would be preferable but the latest on Commons is a grainy one from more than a decade ago, if someone can provide one that would be great). There should be more detail on the assisted suicide itself but don't think much has been reported on the fact as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Between you and me, it's a drug overdose, a lethal injection of a sodium pentobarbitol solution, but good luck finding an entertainment journalist with "the right words" for that, especially if they're writing for an audience which associates public death administration, killer drugs and even the term "Suicide Solution" with a depraved sort of criminality unbefitting this beloved artist-turned-legend. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Given that assisted suicide is legal (to a degree) in Switzerland, we should not be trying to make that a political point in the blurb. He died regardless of the means, there's no need to go into the why. (Outside of assassinations or unnatural causes, we never otherwise put the blurb in about the means of death, and that helps us to stay neutral on issues like this). Masem (t) 02:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's not about politics, it's about mixing medical terms with lay terms. "Drug overdose" reads like an accident to Joe, Jane or Jimmy Average, and "lethal injection" suggests a homicide (ergo, to some, murder most foul). This was not a natural death at all, this was a suicide, caused by drugs and to which many issues plausibly significantly contributed. It sounds worse than it is. So yeah, the less we share or care to know, the better, this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb provided any quality issues are addressed - One of the most significant film makers of all time. Obvious major story. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb, Notable person and article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - not even remotely of the calibre at which we blurb an RD. Come on, the standards haven't changed this much.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - We don't blurb really good filmmakers.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD I'm not sure there's sufficient support to blurb nor sufficient opposition to close the nomination, but the article is in fine shape, so RD is certainly acceptable. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb - he was the most influential film maker alive. 2A02:908:675:8D00:F4B8:EC9B:6EA2:29A9 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Article is fine, and this news is clearly significant. Godard is obviously notable and has had massive and far-reaching influence on the medium of film. He is not simply a "really good filmmaker", if that were all he was he wouldn't have an article or sources covering his death in the first place. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Re-posted as blurb. There's a fairly reasonable consensus (12-4 at the closest, probably more) to do so, therefore I have posted it as a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Godard is a major and transformative person in his field. Qualifies for blub under the "major figures" section in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support It doesn't get more canonized in cinema than Godard. He basically reinvented the entire art form in the 1960s. To those who think he's not up to blurb standards, which directors WOULD you support? (I remember Spielberg/Scorsese were thrown out as examples in an old-ish discussion.) Nohomersryan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Basically none, by giving him a blurb we are putting him on the same level as Queen Elizabeth II. What makes Godard more worthy of a blurb than Ken Starr? - Indefensible (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree with you, but I can respect the consistency. As for Starr, I highly doubt anyone outside of the US really cares who he is. And he's a generally ephemeral figure here anyway. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Funny enough, WP:VITAL already puts Lizzy and Jean-Luc on the same level, since they're both Level 4 people. (Disclaimer: this is not me saying that vital article lists should be used to determine who should be blurbed.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough, still probably not right in my opinion but I guess that's something. - Indefensible (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I wouldn’t put Godard on the same level as someone like Gorbachev, I’d put him on the same level as someone like Queen Elizabeth II, who was a figurehead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb I saw a full length piece on him on PBS Newshour, al-Jazeera, DW and other 1-hour TV news programs outside of France and all of them explained his new philosophies/methods in detail Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality seeing some quite widespread sourcing problems. My eye was drawn to the uncited "The Little Soldier and Les Carabiniers" section. Checking the sources for the following two sections showed much of the information wasn't there (the source primarily provides box office stats). I've tagged sentences that aren't sourced so far, but won't have time to check the whole article - Dumelow (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per Rhino131 and others. Jusdafax (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Pulled - given the concerns raised by Dumelow and the now large number of citation-needed tags in the article, it clearly wasn't ready yet. Once these are fixed, the blurb can be re-posted (much as I objected to it above...)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb once the quality is good enough I wouldn’t put Godard on the same level as someone like Gorbachev, but I’d put him on the same level as someone like Queen Elizabeth II, who was a figurehead. The articles I’ve read make it clear that he was a transformative director. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb once quality is fixed I'll see if there's any citations I can help with if any remains when I have time tomorrow afternoon. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Charles (actor)

• Updated and nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Laterthanyouthink (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Australian Aboriginal actor. I've done a pass through to add missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Ready) Emmys

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: There still need to be a few parts about the ceremony (In Memorandum) that needs to be updated but there is prose. Also probably a few firsts to document as well. Masem (t) 03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Lots of incorrect tense, talking about the event in the future. And the details seem rather dated and tired as we had Ted Lasso last year too, which wasn't posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  We cannot control if a show wins twice in a year, just as we cannot control if two major events in the same country happen back to back. Masem (t) 12:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  And to add, the issue on last's years was the lack of any prose supporting the article at the time of nomination. That's not the case here outside things that may become clear in 24hr+ after the event. This one still needs ceremony details like presenters, it is definitely not yet ready, but its far better than last year. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Only to add that the details I was mentioned above have since been added, so this appears to be reasonably prose complete. Masem (t) 00:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me, and I'm glad to see some prose in these awards articles for once. Whatever tense problems were in the article have been corrected. Agree with Masem that the fact that something won an award in two consecutive years doesn't seem relevant to whether an award show should be blurbed or not. Doc StrangeLogbook 17:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Article looks in good shape, pleasant surprise to see some prose instead of just tables.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support It looks like the article’s good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Ready lets see if this ITN/R item is posted --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:ITNR notes that the winner is the target article. Why isn't that the case here? Anarchyte (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Armenia - Azerbaijan war

• Updated and nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Probably too early to tell if this is full on war or should we be ready to create 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh war article but certainly a huge escalation. Updated at 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis#September 2022 with multiple references there for now. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox says that this has been going on for a year and four months. What about the recent "escalation" merits posting? That proposed blurb is uninformative. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The scale, not just skirmishes this is full on shelling and combat. It's breaking news so I didn't know whether to start a new article or just add it to an existing one. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Nice work! Article still needs a lot of work of course ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wait until we see whether this stays as clashes or turns into another war. The Kip (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Amended nomination to reflect new article.Abcmaxx (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written there isn't nearly enough detail for "large scale clashes" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – New article is a 120-word stub. – Sca (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait It is uncertain whether this escalation will bring about full-scale war, and the clashes have been occurring for some time now. Let's circle back to this later if war does break back out. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support on principal, oppose on quality yesterday's clashes represent a significant escalation over what has taken place in the past year or two, and have forced an international response, which is beginning to trickle its way into international headlines. I find that significant enough. However, the article does not currently pass on quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Time to reevaluate. The article is longer now and the casualties are substantial. Alt3? --Tone 06:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with Alt3. Target linking could be narrowed to "renewed fighting". Brandmeister 07:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Wednesday coverage agrees on toll of 99. AP, BBC, DW But article doesn't mention this, and despite its 900 words seems rather sparse, with over one-third devoted to 'reactions.' – Sca (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Great development in article. Ready for ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support It looks like the article’s good enough to post, but I’d note that it says at least 155 soldiers have died. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Pull This conflict has been ongoing since 1988 and the latest flare-up has been happening since May 2021. It doesn't seem to be getting much attention in the news and it's quite a minor entry in our long list of ongoing armed conflicts. That lists six ongoing major wars with thousands of deaths this year while this one is buried deep in the minor conflicts which is two levels lower. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would be very supportive when someone nominates a high-quality updated article on a current major conflict that isn't seeing quite as much news coverage as this. You're sadly right that a lot of major wars are hardly reported upon. However, such an otherstuffexists argument is unconvincing to me here. This too is a war with hundreds of deaths, and when someone writes a solid up-to-date article about it, we'll feature it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• That particular article is not at all special or unusual. For example, I drilled down on another minor conflict – Anglophone Crisis. That seems quite similar in scale and we have a detailed timeline for 2022, with daily updates this month. These all have sources and one can easily find more. But such conflicts rumble on for years and so, if we cover them at all, they should be in Ongoing.

But another issue with such conflicts is that the information about them is far from reliable because it usually comes from the warring parties and so is distorted by fog of war and deliberate disinformation. For example, the recent Ukraine success was due to misleading reports about their southern offensive, which was designed to distract the other side. See disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for much more. So, as we're an encyclopedia with a historical perspective we should be waiting until the dust has settled and the truth emerges. See also WP:NOTNEWS.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would absolutely love to be able to feature Anglophone Crisis on the front page. It's a solid article on a major current event. If a particularly noteworthy clash happens this month, the article gets expanded significantly, that would be a great inclusion for ITN in my opinion. But I recognize the issue of misinformation and lack of reporting. There's definitely issues with our setup. You may also notice that I'm not entirely ideologically aligned with other commenters here on ITN/C, so this might be a better topic for discussion on the general talk page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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

September 12

(Posted) RD: Lowry Mays

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Lewis

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit) and Doc Strange (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Prolific musician. Article isn't in bad shape, but needs plenty references. Mooonswimmer 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: PnB Rock

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American rapper. Career section missing some references. Mooonswimmer 00:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I have added sourcing to the career section, I believe everything is sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks to be sourced, seems like it's good to go. Doc StrangeLogbook 18:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment is this one ready to go? If there are outstanding issues I'll help to resolve them but it's been sitting at 2 supports and no other !votes for nearly a day. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced, ready. RIP PNB DrewieStewie (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Ks0stm 03:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: William Klein

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died Sep. 10th, reported on today. Article needs some work. Mooonswimmer 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wait: page move discussion in progress. In addition oppose on quality: lots of unreferenced prose, and a large part of the article consists of untidy looking bullet points regarding his work, as well as cannot see any references in those sections either. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Strike my oppose out of respect to nominator; did mention article needs work. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – His bio lacks examples of his work. – Sca (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gwyneth Powell

• Updated and nominated by Cowmilla (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: English actress Cowmilla (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support no reason to oppose, the only thing I can think of is that there's no reference for the school she went to. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Ref added. Spencer 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Swedish general election

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: 94% votes counted, it's pretty much all even, question is whether the other right wing parties will continue to/form a new electoral pact with the very controversial Swedish Democrats party. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The source cited in the nom (The Guardian) says something different: The current headline of that Guardian article is "Rightwing bloc heading to victory in Swedish election, 90% of vote count suggests". In the text of the article itself it says: "With 90% of the vote counted, the right bloc of four parties had a share of the vote corresponding to a majority of three in the 349-seat parliament." Similarly, WaPo says that the right bloc appears to have won a narrow majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but that bloc is yet to form an official alliance. Technically Social Democrats won with the most votes but nowhere near enough to form government. Even when 100% is counted it will be by the narrowest of margins and if Swedish Democrats turn out to provide the PM as the biggest right-bloc party I can guarantee you there'll be a huge uproar.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an explicitly WP:OR argument. If and when we do post something to the ITN, the blurb should correspond to what WP:RS say. And right now most sources say that the the right bloc appears to have won the majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait. The blurb is very much unhelpful. Most media reports group M, SD, KD and L together, and by the current count they do indeed have a majority. Such a blurb would be much better. Second, the count is still ongoing. It's not confirmed who will win before the remaining votes are counted. As such, posting a blurb at this moment is absolutely premature. Gust Justice (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Social Democrats will win a pyrrhic victory. Those 6% left will not change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a win at all for the Social Democrats. Sure they are the largest party, but that doesn't mean anything in the Swedish parliamentary system, where a majority in parliament must elect the Prime Minister. I don't think the outcome will change once the last votes are counted, but we need reliable sources to say so, not conclude it ourselves. Gust Justice (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The last votes remaining to be counted are the postal votes not the in-person votes. They may sway a different way albeit only slightly. Haris920 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. If we are going by that blurb, it clearly is against the WP:RS which therefore should not be posted. If the blurb reflects WP:RS, i’m for it but this nomination is too early and is all in all wrong. BastianMAT (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait. I agree with Abcmaxx on this - the blurb can't be posted as is. If nothing else it may be worth waiting until we hear about coalitions or such, and if this does not come to pass we could at least say that the Social Democrats won the most seats (which may not tell the whole story but tells a bit more). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wait This election is very close although the right-wing bloc currently has a slight majority of 175 seats. Vote counting is still ongoing and will continue until Wednesday. Social Democrats have been the largest party for the past 100 years and it should be noted that Sweden Democrats are now the second-largest party. I'd recommend to change the blurb.

Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Guardian now reports a one seat majority at 95% count. I agree with waiting. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Update Social Democrats likely will win in terms of individual party performance, but right bloc may win by a small margin against the left-bloc.AP News Abcmaxx (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Added altblurb and withdrawn blurb per above comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait ... for official, final results. For obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait. The final results will not be in for a few days yet. It is likely that the liberal-conservative-far right bloc will win a majority, and the left-green-liberal bloc will lose power. It is, however, not clear yet. Furthermore, while it is likely that the Moderates and the Christian Democrats, or the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, can form government if these parties together with the Sweden Democrats can form government, they have yet to actually agree, complicated by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest party among the four but the Liberals have stated they will not to agree to any government the Sweden Democrats are part of. In short, it's far too early to make any statements around where this will lead – we don't present the probable as fact. /Julle (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment on quality Whilst the consensus is to wait for the final results and what the coalitions will look like in terms of forming a majority government, I believe that so far the quality of the article of is very good; in terms of length, quality and referencing alike. If anyone disagrees please comment and/or improve the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• It might be really nice if we had a stand-alone article on the conservative bloc/coalition. (But the current election article is easily looking good enough for blurbing of course!) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't know whether they will form an official one yet and what the composition will be to be fair. So far it has been an informal alliance on a local level. Having said that we may need an article on the left bloc coalition equally as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's likely we won't get all the parties involved together in a coalition government – it's a very uneasy alliance, with the Liberals agreeing to talk to the Sweden Democrats to negotiate a government but stating they will not support a government including the Sweden Democrats; likewise, in the opposite bloc, the Centre Party can't imagine forming government with the Left Party. We're looking at minority governments with reluctant support from parties who don't exactly like each other but consider the alternatives worse. I'm not sure we should create articles for these uneasy alliances unless there is very good sourcing to do so specifically. They are in no way as strong as for example Alliance (Sweden), which was a real coalition, used to be. /Julle (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's exactly why I had the initial blurb as it was; no-one won really. Also, worth adding that the Red-Greens have an article regarding the left bloc which may need updating and inclusion in the election article. It may even needs to be split as it technically refers to 2x coalitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Added altblurb2 in case there is a minority government.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Julle: am I right in saying that there's a chance of a hung parliament and another election or are we likely to see another minority government? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx I think a hung parliament would be far too speculative for us. All sources assume someone will form government based on the result we'll see on Wednesday or Thursday. /Julle (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Wait As to Le Monde and several other news outlets votes will be counted until Wednesday due to the narrow outcome.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is Wednesday and we still don't have a government to blurb on. The Socialists won, but the rightwing coalition appears to have won. I'd wait until the new Government assumes or on a new Government is agreed upon. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've added a third alternate blurb that more accurate reflects the reporting in Reliable Sources. As others have pointed out, I think a blurb in any case should only be posted once final results are available on Wednesday. Gust Justice (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As of 99.63% of votes counted, the Social Democrats will remain the largest parliamentary party, although the SD–M–KD–L bloc won the election by two seats. It's time to post this now. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Prime Minister Andersson conceded. Vacant0 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  She will resign tomorrow.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support al blurb 3 only. The other blurbs reflect a POV spin that does not correspond to how WP:RS are characterizing the election outcome. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb III. The preliminary results are 100% counted. Some mention of the leadership of the coalition would also be helpful, but as the Sweden Democrats have won more seats than the Moderates who nominally lead the coalition (and will likely form the next government), this is unclear. The news item for the 2018 Italian general election, where a similar thing happened, took the same approach as blurb III. JackWilfred (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The national broadcaster, SVT, have just called the election. JackWilfred (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb III We can't blurb a new government yet, but the elections won the right wing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

South African dam collapse

• Updated and nominated by TapticInfo (talk · give credit)

 TapticInfo (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

There's plenty in the sources tab? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wait on article quality; this is basically a stub and most of the article is background taken from Jagersfontein. - Indefensible (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – On Tuesday absent from primary Eng. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

September 11

(Posted) RD: Mavis Nicholson

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 11); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Joyce Reynolds (classicist)

• Updated and nominated by Modussiccandi (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Reynolds was a pioneering woman in the world of classical scholarship and a centenarian. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Still working before her death too. The quality of her article is of a standard similar to or better than the four most recent deaths listed (James L. Fisher, LaDeva Davis, Anthony Varvaro and James Polshek), she has a photograph (two of those don't) and she sounds like a more remarkable person than all four men combined. --Gaois (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  That last part is completely unfounded. - Indefensible (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was not intended disrespectfully towards the four. A 103-year-old pioneering academic who was still working towards the end of her life, a Kenyon Medal winner (it is only awarded every two years), a scholarship is named after her, she is the oldest recipient of a D.Litt. honorary degree from Cambridge... --Gaois (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please be reminded that notability is not part of the consideration for RD nominations. Let's focus on article quality and MainPage readiness. Any wikibio with no glaring problems would be fine, as long as the subject is indeed recently deceased. -- PFHLai (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  And I imagine Davis would not appreciate being misgendered. Plus, the article has an uncited paragraph that needs to be fixed, unlike those four aforementioned articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies. 😧 Was the uncited paragraph that sentence about the book? I can't see anything else. There is a citation now. --Gaois (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  That was the one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Interesting to read article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake

• Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
• Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Greater magnitude than recent Sichuan earthquake which is currently blurbed, fewer casualties. - Indefensible (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment List of earthquakes in Papua New Guinea --LaserLegs (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not as many as I expected actually; this is only the 16th listed since Misplaced Pages was created, and 3rd most powerful among them it seems. - Indefensible (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah so one every 18 months or so, seems an average number of fatalities. Need more details on what "widespread damage" means to really evaluate. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Reports are coming in slow so may want to put this nomination on wait first. The region is currently in a total system outage so higher figures could come in days after the earthquake. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Commment We should link to the actual article rather than a list of all earthquakes in papua new guinea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support – I think the article is already looking really solid! I think this is a really good subject to feature, though I'm of course looking forward to seeing the article expand more as more information flows in. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's rare to have an earthquake of that magnitude therefore definitely a notable event. The article is long, detailed and sourced, despite it concerning a remote part of the world. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  They had a 7.6 three years ago, a 7.9 six years ago and five 7.0 or higher in the last four years what exactly is "rare" here? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are still almighty big earthquakes though, each notable in its own right. Abcmaxx (talk)

• Wait – A big shake, but so far few casualties reported. – Sca (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Please let's not go down the rabbit hole of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Article is in good shape, topic is in the news. --Jayron32 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - is it that unusual though? USGS lists 19 7+ earthquakes in 2021 and 11 in that area since 2010. 7.6 is on the high end of Magnitude 7 quakes, but the death toll seems minimal. There were 3 magnitude 8+ earthquakes worldwide in 2021. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This does not seem like consensus at all. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment – Given the relatively low number of casualties, this seems somewhat UNDUE. Not widely covered Tues. – Sca (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  UNDUE is not a policy that applies to posting items on the main page. --Jayron32 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Lives matter. -- Sca (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony Varvaro

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Javier Marías

• Updated and nominated by SitcomyFan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by MichelCastagne (talk · give credit), Martin Petherbridge (talk · give credit), Paradise Chronicle (talk · give credit) and Gaois (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Spanish novelist. Other updaters include: Jkaharper, Ira Leviton, Goszei, Asqueladd, Normantas Bataitis, Unknown artist, Alexcalamaro, and more. --SitcomyFan (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Article appears to be in good shape, subject is notable enough. Rooves 13 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A number of uncited paragraphs and statements. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Subject is sure notable enough. Seems to have been quite a writer. But I agree with Black Kite that there are several unsourced phrases, to which I believe the sources can be found easily as I have come across a quite a good source on him. The literary mind/thought of Javier Marías is quite promising. I'll try to add some sources and come back with the result.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I am taking a break. For anyone interested to source the Kingdom of Redonda part, it's a fun section with Kings, Duchies and a a charming diplomatic spat with the Government of the United Kingdom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive

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.

• Nominated by BilledMammal (talk · give credit)

• Oppose we have it in ongoing Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Being in ongoing doesn't prevent us posting significant events, and I think Ukraine routing Russian forces in Kharkiv is one of those. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Counteroffensives are expected in war. It is a significant liberation of territory, but still a long way to go and I think it's covered by the ongoing item. Polyamorph (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While we do post big stories while the main ongoing event is going on, this is part of the normal flow of wars. --Masem (t) 13:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Major development in the war. Article also looks good. Izium should be spelled as it is on its own page.Khuft (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  same thing with Kupiansk. Khuft (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose — War's going to do its war thing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose While I can see it's a new development, I don't see it as newsworthy yet. If they can actually hold on to it and "turn the tide", that's something; but if Russia were to push them back next week it would just be another development. I think the main article in ongoing suffices, for now. –LordPeterII (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support The major collapse of the Russian army we're seeing now is far from what was "expected", it is not a "normal" war thing but rather surprising and a defining, historic even, moment in this conflict that should be highlighted on ITN. Shanes (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the major collapse of the Russian army, yet. A major retreat in one region, but the war is not yet won and we don't have a crystal ball. Polyamorph (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's been widely described as a sudden collapse of one of the war's principal front lines. The war is not yet won, but it is a significant event regardless of who wins. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  "One of the principle lines". Exactly. It is clearly a significant battle but the war is ongoing. Similar progress was also made by Russia earlier in the War. It is right that it is in ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  clearly a significant battle - a strong argument in favour of posting. The fact that the war isn't over shouldn't change that.

  Arguments like these, and those by other editors such as Sca, Paradise Chronicle, and LaserLegs, appear to be arguments against posting any blurbs about the war. This wouldn't align with ITN guidelines, which state that we should not oppose a story based on an assessment of the appropriateness of the topic, and would be detrimental to our readers, as one of our purposes is to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Err no, my argument is strongly against posting and it's why we have it as ongoing, we can't post every significant event in the war. Polyamorph (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources are describing this as Ukraine's biggest victory, and most significant gains, since Russia retreated from Kyiv. You are right that we can't post every significant event of in the war, but we if we can't post the most significant event of the past five months what can we post? BilledMammal (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a HYPOTHETICAL example of a postable blurb: "Putin resigns in controversy over Ukraine War." (Preceding purely imaginary.) -- Sca (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose we didn't post Russia taking major objectives we ought not post Ukraine doing so while this is still sitting in ongoing. Now if you're ready to crowbar this forever war out of the ongoing section I'm happy to support relevant blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  The reason presented against posting Russia taking major objectives were that they weren't pivotal; they were normal events in the course of the war. A major counteroffensive, advancing at a rate unseen since the start of the war, does not meet that definition and should be considered on its own merits, rather than rejected because we didn't post other things. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's nice, but we didn't blurb the fall of Mariupol and we won't be blurbing this. I don't get hysterical over Ukranian agitprop and don't see anything here but another grim milestone in an 18 year long struggle. Thanks though. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ukranian agitprop?

  And we didn't post the end of the siege of Mariupol for two reasons; it was nominated prematurely, three days before the end of the siege, and because it was considered inevitable. Neither of those reasons apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Did you even read the discussion? Consensus was "sufficiently covered by ongoing" --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose would perhaps meet the requirements of a blurb if it wasn't covered by ongoing YD407OTZ (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – There's reason for optimism on Ukraine's part: AP BBC Reuters France24 DW But taking the long view, this is another chapter in Russia's merciless war on Ukraine. It's not over. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Another angle: "Russian nationalists rage." -- Sca (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a campaign in an ongoing war which we already have posted as ongoing event.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd have supported if not for the previous precedent of not posting any development in the war as long as it's in ongoing. Banedon (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Banedon: We've posted several developments, including the Sinking of the Moskva and the Bucha massacre. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, ongoing events, we have to Waite for major developments. Alex-h (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Alex-h: What would you consider a major development? BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Gotitbro, we don't need to post every development in this war, unless something massive (i.e. nuclear war, assassination) happens. Rooves 13 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – After 10 hours, it's 11-3 against posting. – Sca (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Now it’s 12-3. I’m opposing per all above. Already on ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger

• Created and nominated by Paradise Chronicle (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: She became the first women judge of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, the supreme court on Switzerland in 1974. She died on the 10 September. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Long enough (500+ words of prose). Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots, AGF'ing all non-English refs. Earwig found absolutely nothing to complain at all. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 13:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

September 10

(Posted) RD: Jack Ging

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Kurt Gottfried

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
• Updated by JerrieAtrix (talk · give credit) and Connormah (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Austrian American physicist. co-founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists. NY Times obit published 10 September. Thriley (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Frank Cignetti Sr.

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

RD: B. B. Lal

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Indian archaeologist Dumelow (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Lack of information on early life (schooling; even where he did bachelor's from; or the year for "master's degree in Sanskrit from Allahabad University"). Gotitbro (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: List of publications needs an ISBN/ref. Not sure if Google Books links count as sufficient? Spencer 03:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marsha Hunt

• Nominated by SitcomyFan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nohomersryan (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

 --SitcomyFan (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

September 9

(Posted) RD: James Polshek

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Ray Rippelmeyer

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I think it's minimally sufficient but will keep working on it so lmk if you see something glaring I missed. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Closed) New High Commissioner for Human Rights

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.

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

September 8

RD:Sonny West

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nycpress (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American musician and song writer Dumelow (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: LaDeva Davis

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

RD: Marciano Cantero

• Nominated by FlyingAce (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Argentine musician. Needs a lot more refs, will try to work on it but it probably will be until tomorrow. –FlyingAce 00:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support when all issues are fixed. Notable death. --Bedivere (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that notability of death is not a requirement. (See last line in the pale yellow box above.) Let's focus the discussion on article quality and MainPage readiness. --PFHLai (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I know. I support the article's posting on ITN when it has its issues corrected. Bedivere (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Biography" is completely unreferenced. Cambalachero (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Still largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Queen Elizabeth II

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.

• Nominated by Chrisclear (talk · give credit)

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

• Obvious support -- Rest in Peace. --Rockstone 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb article is FA Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Support once article is sufficiently updated Jbvann05 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

support blurb Not much to say, this is a major event.  4🧚‍♂am KING  17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• (edit conflict) Support - article is FA and importance isn't up for debate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: No question. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Major news outlets confirm it now. Shocking. Definetely needs to be put up inmediately. Mjeims (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support The day is finally here. Davey2116 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support blurb, No question this is a world figure whose death will be on most front pages. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:D5D8:FD3A:6642:D1AD (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support and post immediately No question about the notability of a Queen who has been Britain's anchor for almost three quarters of a century. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Support There is an article for the death and funeral: Death of Elizabeth II. Thriley (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Image is added for cascading protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

• Comment that image of Liz Truss needs to go. God I feel bad for snickering when I saw it in conjunction with the headline...--SinoDevonian (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The image has been protected on commons, can be replaced here now by an admin I think. nableezy - 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Tone 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb, and please get her photo up and ditch the one of Truss. The Queen trumps her. cart-Talk 17:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support of course, should the blurb mention that Charles, King of the United Kingdom has become the new monarch? We usually announce new leaders. — xaosflux 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth waiting at least a few hours to see if a regnal name is announced. The official announcement so far just referred to him as the King'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably wait until crowned. He can still turn round and refuse it until then. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

He is already king though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Both BBC and CNN say that Charles immediately became King upon the Queen's death Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And the Royal Family too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Legally he is king whether he likes it or not. If he doesn't want to be king then Parliament would have to pass a law saying that he isn't king, as they did for Edward VIII (who was never crowned). Hut 8.5 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

True but in this case I would suggest leaving him out of the blurb for now since the news coverage almost completely focuses on her death and not on his ascension. If and when news coverage becomes mainly about him, we can change it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think so, and if the name changes can update the blurb then. Think this can be closed though, blurb and photo are up with obvious consensus for it. Any further changes can happen at WP:ERRORS. nableezy - 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Post-blurb comment Perhaps change the image to File:The Queen of New Zealand, 1986 crop.jpg, as now being used on the article? Jheald (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think so...she is wearing New Zealand decorations. But I think the photo should be changed to more of a portrait photo. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Post-blurb comment In terms of Charles, Buckingham Palace confirmed he was the King in the death announcement. And the Prime Minister confirmed that he was King Charles III in her speech. Something should be added to tbe blurb. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ERRORS. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Two full stops at the end of the sentence-would be good if an admin can remove this. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I previously posted this at Talk:Main Page#Upcoming Elizabeth II TFA and it was suggested that I come here instead. As is mentioned on that page in the previous discussion, Elizabeth II is scheduled TFA for 19 September to coincide with the funeral. By then, it's very likely that her ITN item will still be live. I suggest that for the time that the TFA is up, we change the ITN item so that the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is in bold font. I say this for a variety of reasons:

• that article is in good shape
• it would appear strange to have a TFA and an ITM main item point to the same article
• to point to the funeral article on the day of the funeral would seem appropriate

Thoughts? Schwede66 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wanna nominate the funeral wikipage on the day of the funeral? God knows what newsworthy calamities await us over the next few days, bumping the current blurb off ITN soon. No doubt the funeral wikipage will get lots of support !votes then. --PFHLai (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, and would support this as proposed. What should the ITN situation be on September 20? Should we return the ITN setup to the death and ascendance, or should we keep it on the funeral after the TFA has ended? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind whether it reverts to the current blurb or stays like that. Schwede66 21:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That somebody is buried after they die is not news, and if this gets bumped by other events then it shouldnt artificially be returned. nableezy - 21:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions
• Current events