(Posted) RD: Rick Redman

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

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

(Posted) RD: Marvin Powell

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

• Support good to go.

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

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

(Posted) RD: Dan Wieden

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

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

RD: Antonio Inoki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Robin Marlar

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

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

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

(Posted) RD: Héctor López

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

• Support GA, fully referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Needs more sourcing at Héctor López#Panamanian history. I have concern that the section is WP:OR based on WP editor combing through "firsts" from stats database queries. With long-standing unsourced text on well-visited WP, there is also concern that a source is WP:CIRCULAR, and just mirroring "facts" already on Wikipedia. Care should be taken that a cited source mentioned the fact before WP introduced the unsourced material. The text in questions seems to have existed at least since the 2008 version that was listed as having been promoted to GA. It was only mostly sourced to a stats site, even then.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Kabul bombing

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD:Akissi Kouamé

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

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

(Posted) RD: Al Primo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Leonard A. Cole

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

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

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose the alt blurbs. Mentioning the referendum requires us to characterize it, and that opens a can of worms. The news is the declaration itself. The original blurb is somewhat inaccurate in calling them "occupied" as the annexation also applies to unoccupied areas. Perhaps "portions of Eastern Ukraine" threads the needle. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alt4 - Annexation is the main focus, and the occupation regimes are hyperlinked. No need to hyperlink Russia, Ukraine or oblast, that's not usually done. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait - until it actually happens, when it does it should be Alt 3. Alt 1 & 2 violate WP:NPOV so theres no way those can be posted (though Alt2 would be ok without the "so-called"); the original and alt 4 lack context.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

  I'd be fine with that. While "so-called" is not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED, it's tough to think of a better alternative besides explicitly terming it a sham in Wikivoice, and failing to mention the illegitimacy of the referendums or otherwise implying that real referendums occurred would violate NPOV per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. A subtle expression of doubt like "so-called" could be the best option.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• Propose ALT5 based off above comment from Gust Justice and synthesis of other blurbs. We must be careful not to imply that Russia is doing this legally, nor that they control all of what they are claiming. The Kip (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Considering that some of the "annexed" regions are only partially occupied by Russia (e.g. the capital/largest city of Zaporizhzhia is still Ukranian, and has been throughout this war), we shouldn't state that these are "Russian-occupied" without qualifiers (partially-occupied?). Something like "Russia declares to have annexed four Ukrainian oblasts"? Fram (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

  Added (with a minor tweak) as Alt6. Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  qualitative descriptors are subjective; thats the problem with "widely-condemned" ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Neutral doesn't mean bland, it means apply WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The biggest problem with the current blurb, is legally the territories haven't been annexed yet, the Russian State Duma still has to rubber stamp the "treaties" before they can be officially incorporated into Russia... Expected to happen sometime between October 4-5. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: John Rowe (Exelon)

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (September 28); died on September 24. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

(Posted) RD: David Gottesman

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

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der Bijl

Nominator's comments: Dutch Christian missionary, Bible smuggler and evangelist, announced 9/28. Content considerably revised for neutrality/removal of commentary, expanded with additional detail, and added third-party refs (instead of relying on his autobiography), and article is in much better shape now. Spencer^T•C 01:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Tom Urbani

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

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

(Posted) RD: Gavin Escobar

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

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

(Posted) RD: Coolio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Bill Plante

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

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

(Posted) Hurricane Ian

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

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

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

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

Note: I added an alt blurb because currently, the impacts to Cuba are much more significant that Florida at the present time with the entirety of Cuba losing power. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet. Sarrail (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

@Sca: Are people in Cuba not people? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting Muboshgu and The ed17. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Re-read what I wrote. I was calling for a different, Cuba-focused blurb to be posted. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

• What are the impacts to Cuba? That's more important than waiting around for whatever happens to Florida. When it makes landfall, we can update whatever blurb we posted for Cuba. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @WaltCip:, Muboshgu, The ed17, Sca, Sarrail: I just added an alt blurb for the Cuba landfall and impacts to Cuba. You guys want to post it just with the Cuba impacts until the US impacts are more clear, so let’s post that. Consider this a Support for the new alt blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support alt blurb. Whatever comes of the landfall in Florida, this is going to be a very significant storm.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

”actually make an informed decision about the notability”…Guess 2 fatalities and an entire nation without power doesn’t make something notable enough for ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DarkSide830: Would like to point out, we have confirmed two fatalities and 11 million without power in Cuba alone. That alone should be enough to post a blurb, that then can be changed in the future (probably tomorrow) with the information about Florida. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

A hurricane knocking out power to all of Puerto Rico isn’t uncommon (happened with Hurricane Maria in 2017 for example). But as far as I am aware, it is extremely rare for all of Cuba to be without power. Also, Puerto Rico was 1.2 million without power while Cuba is 11 million. Equivalent to all of a single US state (like Florida) losing power from a hurricane. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I remember correctly, it was a struggle to get a consensus to post the 2019 South American blackout which left nearly 50 million without power, though we eventually posted it. We don't know enough about the damage to Cuba yet. I don't believe in "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS", but there is a line somewhere, and there's not a chance of a consensus forming when only two casualties are confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

@Masem: It's not just a loss of power from this storm, it's a loss of power for an entire country. That's unusual and worth posting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I do fully disagree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard about wanting to wait to post Hurricane Ian until it becomes more notable. For all intents and purposes, I feel like you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion and I am saying my opinion that I fully disagree with that assessment. Slightly funny. I originally !vote “Wait” for US landfall, get told it is notable enough to post based on Cuba alone, switch !vote to support on an alt blurb about Cuba alone, then get told to wait again for notability (aka US stuff). ITN nominations are always fun… Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

By that interpretation, even if Hurricane Ian became a category 5 at landfall, it would not be ITN worthy until either the death toll is higher OR NWS does initial damage estimates (after it dissipates). Sounds like ITN needs to have a long RfC to determine what "In The News" means. International coverage and hundreds to thousands of articles covering the hurricane, with a large portion commenting on the complete power loss to Cuba is clearly "In The News", however, from the def you just described, practically no storm could ever make ITN, unless a dozen+ people are killed. I do foresee myself starting an RfC in a few days on this topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

That may be the principle, however, I personally know many ITN’s that were posted with less than what this article has. Yesterday alone, it got 22,000 views. I am betting nearly 100k or more today. If that truly is the ITN principle, then this RfC in the next coming days will be extremely interesting and possible precedent setting. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really want to play the “good quality encyclopedia articles” route, then Hurricane Ian 100% passes every possible ITN “good quality” checklist. An article I started, Zamfara kidnapping made ITN. Hurricane Ian as more international coverage, more article views, more bytes in size, more images, and is basically “more” or “better” in every possible way (even more deaths) than that kidnapping article, which made ITN. Stop stalling because you haven’t said a single reason that can’t be pushed back on why Hurricane Ian shouldn’t be posted to ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Also, based on that def, once NWS posts Ian's initial damage total, would that make it ITN (even if it ain't in the news anymore)? "Scale of destruction" cannot be judged during a storm that is ongoing, meaning you are considering only fatalities for ITN worthiness on a storm. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, you know as well as anyone there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So re-nominate in like 2-3 days (after it ain’t a Hurricane anymore)? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As suggested by multiple editors, can we get an admin to close this nomination as “no consensus” so it can be renominated in a day or two once the fatality total is higher? (WP:OR - As daylight is breaking, storm chasers are reporting multiple new fatalities and authorities said “fatalities in the hundreds”). Waiting until the fatality count is higher for renomination is the best.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Are you kidding? The nomination has only been up for a day. It's completely disingenuous to close this thread as "no consensus" especially when you yourself proposed an alt-blurb. And on top of all that, in the same breath mentioning that authorities are reporting "fatalities in the hundreds". If WP:MINIMUMDEATHS existed (which it doesn't) this would blow that threshold out of the water. Absolutely no to closing this as no consensus. God damn, let the process run a bit longer. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Seriously…I get told the opposite thing EVERY TIME I write a new !vote comment. Not a good blurb, let’s wait until fatality count, its notable on Cuba only, 11 million power outages ain’t notable enough, 1 fatality ain’t notable, its notable. Dear God. I’m actually wishing I NEVER commented ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sure. Support Alt Blurb for immediate posting. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So confused by all the recent “Oppose” !votes. Here is my opinion. Anyone who voted against the Cuba only blurb prior to US landfall made a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because Fiona wasn’t posted is making a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because it is US centric is making a wrong choice (but still right that some !votes appeared US centric). Basically, this is a waste of time and those who 100% opposed a quick closure of “no consensus” earlier, you basically just doomed this discussion automatically to a no consensus without a good prayer of being renominated/posted. God job y’all. (Even I am at fault for saying wait in the first place and not instantly adding a Cuba only blurb). Feels like everyone in this discussion has legit made some wrong choice which is dooming it to no consensus. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

  Yes, since Fiona is now posted on ITN. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Hilaree Nelson

Nominator's comments: Missing September 26; Body found on September 28 बडा काजी (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

(Closed) Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia

(Posted) RD: Sue Mingus

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 27); died on September 24. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Joe Bussard

Nominator's comments: Notable collector of pre-war American roots music. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nord Stream leaks