Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/January 2023

Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 07:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets criteria. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bernard Kalb[edit]

Oppose Some unsourced statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Russell Banks[edit]

There is an orange-tag asking for sources in the Works section. ~~Some of the bullet-points above the orange-tag need sources, too.~~^{[Just added a few footnotes there. Never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)]} Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Keshari Nath Tripathi[edit]

Oppose, article has lots of unsourced content. Sarrail (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is a bunch of CNs within the article Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lots of CN tags. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Adam Rich[edit]

Oppose Sourcing issues. The article flow is also substandard, placing his numberous drug problems throughout his life before a (too) short section on his acting career.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready Referencing and a large tag at the top of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: lots of {{citation needed}} tags, and lead section issues need to be fixed. Sarrail (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Filmography unsourced. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Invasion of the Brazilian Congress[edit]

Wait - Support in principle, since its major news but that article needs serious expanding first.✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 19:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality article needs a lot of work. Adding altblurb. What makes it even more notorious (and extremely worrisome) is that the three branches of state power have been assaulted. I don't know to what extent it would be considered a coup attempt, because unlike the 6 January or the 23F in Spain, they are not trying to block a transcendental constitutional procedure. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits put oppose in current form, per above. 71.125.62.17 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with form of wording' but Complete and total support for inclusion of the event on the merits that this is a major world event that is ongoing. My support is dependent on revised wording of the form SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate blurb preferred. Strongly disapprove of language of primary proposed blurb. It is too strong and currently not supported. SecretName101 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet seen this described as a coup attempt. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle, but let's let's wait for the article to be expanded. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While the full scope of the event has yet to be determined, the videos popping up make it clear that this a major event. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 20:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Skyshifter ^talk 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Quality may be low at the moment but this is too important to wait on. Estar8806 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wikipedia is a work in progress and the article quality may be low at this point, but will ultimately improve as more editors stream in. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I'll go with the first one but feel free to modify. --Tone 20:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting comment This is undoubtedly something that should be in the ITN box on the main page, but we probably could have waiting until the key section of the article, the "Events", was fleshed out better. The article is weighed out of balance by background context and reactions, and we can easily do better than that given a few more hours as news develops. --Masem (t) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment. The term "invade" seems a bit odd here. If we can change that to "storm" or "seize", that would be better. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Storm would be a definite improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. ArionEstar (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the listed sources have referred to these events as a "coup attempt". --Yair rand (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
neither does our blurb. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING 00:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this image is good enough to be added. ArionEstar (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time to change the pic, I guess. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with an image of the damage: File:Invasão do prédio do Congresso Nacional (52615636677).jpg. Sandstein 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comment I see now that the entry on the front page reads 'invade', whereas i recall (perhaps incorrectly) yesterday it said 'Storm'. What is the reason for the change?, do news sources about this say 'storm' or 'invade' or use other words? Is 'invade' a more accurate english translation of whatever Portuguese word that portuguese-language sources are using to describe the event? Am curious to hear, I'm not challenging the prose at all. Thanks! QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) Kaffrine bus crash[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 7 Template:Cob

Oppose. Death does not confer notability. Any long term significance is unlikely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per precedent, death tolls are an important factor in notability. But generally I am uncomfortable saying "This tragedy is more notable than this one because more people lost their lives.". I don't know why, but it seems... sadistic.

I think we shouldn't look at death tolls for notability unless they are extraordinarily high, instead look at coverage, precedent, and other factors, which I don't really see here. So, oppose. This is an awful tragedy though, and shouldn't be understated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once expanded This event caused 40 deaths, and is very rare for a country in Africa. We should not be engaging in ethnocentrism, which is what not posting this item comes off as to me. 71.125.62.17 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, if this happened in the U.S. it would be on the main page before the bodies were cold. Few similar incidents have happened in Africa, apart from the Dschang bus-truck crash (2021). Senegal has declared three days of national mourning, which again underscores how exceptional the incident is. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Skyshifter ^talk 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bus crashes in Africa are like shootings in America – a daily occurrence. Here's a bunch of other similar recent crash stories with head-on collisions, lots of deaths, &c. also today; 2 days ago; last week; 4 days ago; last week; a month ago... See also bus plunge. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a shooting in America kills 40 people, it would be posted. So the argument about bus crashes in Africa being as common as shootings in America doesn't apply IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of nomination does not equal lack of notability. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally not my point. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 14:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Andrew. The indentation might not have been very clear on my part. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality far too short. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - 40 deaths are are far too much to not be covered. Oppose on quality though as the article needs a lot of expansion. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 13:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose per Bestagon, with hopes of seeing this article improved, although the location of the crash may doom the possibility of reliable coverage.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 40 deaths is a lot, so it normally would be posted on Wikipedia. It is not common for this to happen in Africa, so it should be posted. TomMasterReal^TALK 01:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article has been substantially expanded; it's currently a stub. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too short. It has currently three paragraphs of one sentence each. A total of 68 words of prose using 401 characters. This discussion has more prose than the article. Heck! My !vote so far has has more then half of that. If I could think of more to say about it, I could get up to two thirds. I did get up to two thirds! Should I go for more prose then the article? Too late! I already did! online word counters are cool. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but oppose on quality This is important enough to be posted, but the article’s quality isn’t good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Article is still horribly short. Noteworthy event but time is already running out. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have improved and expanded the article somewhat. Sheila1988 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Yuri Manin[edit]

Note: The section on his research needs in-text citations. Joofjoof (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Citations added. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this looks better now. Voting Support. Joofjoof (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Modeste M'bami[edit]

A single-sentence lead section is followed by two sections of prose with zero footnotes. Please beef up the intro and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Article contains unsourced material. Will add CN tags hoping that it be fixed, but time is running out. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William S. W. Lim[edit]

Comment: Pretty close; Books section needs either a reference or ISBN for each. Spencer^T•C 04:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Spencer. Done. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. – robertsky (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Victoria Lee[edit]

Nominator's comments: I believe the article is incomplete when the cause of death of a teenage girl is not given. NMasiha (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We work with what's made public, and often the death of a teenage girl is a mostly private affair. Only the intimate details of her pro MMA finishes are required (by us and the law). Also, I don't believe you're the nominator; Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No article can ever be considered as complete as there is always new information surfacing even after someone has long died. We can only present what is out there. Beyond what is available out in the open, it is either primary source (that's if you somehow have first hand knowledge) or speculations. For now, it is what it is. – robertsky (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article good enough. But why is NMasiha pretending to be the nom? The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm marking this as ready. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 08:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sinikiwe Mpofu[edit]

Support Sufficiently sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election[edit]

Support. This was a historic event as this many rounds haven't been required since before the U.S. Civil War. It's had extensive news coverage, and is worthy of being placed on the main page. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We wouldn't post an equivalent story for any other country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker of the House is an important role, and we post election results from much smaller countries (Fiji recently) all the time. The way this was conducted hasn't happened in a century; it's not your standard speaker vote. Unknown-Tree (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say that smaller countries aren't as important. That's was pretty much my point. There's nothing special about the result. The real story here is probably that American politics is in a mess. Where is the article on that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone saying that smaller countries are not important - although it's unrealistic all the countries have the same weight. Anyway why making such a fuss? It's not even the point of who's more important. And I'm frankly baffled by that comment about American politics, which is totally useless.
Please, stay on the matter. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what DOES this event mean in the long term? HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. But it does mean that we'll probably see another political realignment. The GOP is not in a good spot. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - first time it's happened in 100 years. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Took a little longer than usual. The US has a system unlike a lot of other countries where it's a long quicker typically to form a government. The length of time/number of ballots even is not that unprecedented, nor was the eventual winner. Nothing-burger story that has no lasting impact and tells us nothing we didn't already know about US politics. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a mainly American event certainly, but still a notable, historic event given the circumstances, who made news around the world. The blurb should say that it's been 150+ years since the last time. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This has zero long term impact. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you say that, since this has literally been 150+ years since the last time something similar happened. We won't see such a thing, probably, at least for decades. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - So what? This has zero long term impact. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made clear how this actually has a long term impact. It's up to you to figure out where in the text, if you can. Have fun. Lone Internaut (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer. Did the US government shut down? No. Did the President lose his executive powers? No. Did the Supreme Court have to step in? No. What long-term impact has this effected outside CSPANs viewing figures? doktorb _words^deeds 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take a catastrophe to end into ITN, Doktorbuk. Also, your definition of "long term impact" is not absolute. We won't see such a thing at least for decades, this is already having a long term impact. By extension, the event marks a partisanship in the GOP which, even looking back, is sure to have a long term impact.

I, as a European, 6000 kilometers away, really wonder how you can flaunt certain arguments against this. Lone Internaut (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to pin down "long term impact". Nobody here can see a long-term impact, the Ink is barely dry on the documents confirming him as Speaker. There have been no consequences to the House, nor the running of the levers of governance. I can't see how this is front page worthy when it's taken less than a week for one house of a Parliament to choose a Speaker. That's not news, it's admin. doktorb _words^deeds 08:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first bullet point of WP:ITN is Template:Xt There is nothing in WP:ITNCRIT that we should speculate on an event's impact when deciding to post or not, however. We cannot by definition know the impact because that is the future but there are quite a lot of people in various news sources who argue that this indeed will have long term impact (such as Dana Milbank whose recent op in the WaPo is titled "To save himself, McCarthy just destroyed the House"). Regards So Why 14:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While the speaker itself isn’t really ITN, when combined with the amount of rounds unseen for more than a century and a half, it makes it much more important. DecafPotato (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How? No rules were broken. The process worked. The expected result was achieved. The long term impact will be zero. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 06:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose and counterproposal: Hakeem Jeffries has been elected minority leader of the United States House of Representatives with 212 votes in almost every round of voting. --Enyavar (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of parliaments elect speakers, so this isn't remarkable Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is remarkable because of the power the Speaker of the House has in the US vs. other countries. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If an election is not on ITNR it is a good statement of measure that results of it are not considered particularly notable for ITN, especially when it is below the level of head of state/government (whoever holds the actual executive power). Speakers have not been posted on ITN [in recent times] at all regardless of the unusual circumstances that might have lead to their election. The situation here is the same (not to mention the outcome expected) and I am not convinced that we need to move away from ITN precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not an event of significance; the event of significance was the Republican party winning a majority, which we posted. Given that, the identity of the speaker is just intra-party squabbling. This isn't even comparable to post-election coalition-building in other countries, as the party's majority was assured. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We did not post the GOP winning a majority. Or we did, but then it was pulled for no good reason and never reposted, despite people requesting it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A domestic issue, not notable on the world stage. Not a historically high number of ballots. Would not pass if nominated for any other country. The US is not global. Wikipedia is not American. doktorb _words^deeds 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments suggest you others are the ones obsessed with the United States... Lone Internaut (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not... Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Also, the US is not global, but it is part of the globe. ITN applies to the US as much as it does anywhere else. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rockstone my vote is not solely against because it's the US. It's a factor, of course it is. What's happened is a democratic vote inside a democratic parliament for a Speaker. That's all. A democratic , adminstrative decision. Yes, it's taken a week and the media have baked up a cake of controversy, but that's all it is. Everything around it is because, being American politics, there are various narratives about Trump and Biden and this and that, it's all inflated and blown up to appear notable, to appear historic, to appear like there are long term consequences. But take away that and it's just a vote for Speaker that lasted a week; we wouldn't post that for any other country. We shouldn't because it's the US House of Representatives. doktorb _words^deeds 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oppose and close per hundreth time I don't know what was not clear from the two discussions that have already taken place. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you disagree with a nomination doesn't mean you should misuse WP:SNOW. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above,and my point last time. Just because something unusual happened during the process doesn't mean we should break precedence to post this mostly procedural story. Same as the nomination of Kavanaugh story really. — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is clearly in the news much more than the existing blurbs, which are all stale. And the argument about other countries is false. Some countries have a crude system in which just one person wields power – African despotisms and totalitarian dictatorships. But sophisticated democracies and republics like the US have systems which are deliberately constructed to prevent such concentration of power. The EU has three Presidents and a large parliament and we recently ran a blurb about it. The Swiss have a Federal Council and we recently ran a blurb about that. So, there's plenty of precedent for running a similar blurb about the US's complex politics. ITN's rules state clearly that one should not "Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country" and so such opposes should be discounted. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your only shot was if it dragged on for months or years. Instead, it resolved itself rapidly, with the outcome everyone expected. Breathless gawking by the 24 hour news cycle does not make something noteworthy. Though I do appreciate the irony of repeatedly nominating the exact same thing over and over, hoping for a different result. Danthemankhan 08:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- it's over. It's in the news. It was historic. I get that it's an American news story, but we can't ignore stories just because they happen in America. I'm tired of the anti-American bias on ITN (which is probably a good-faith effort to counter systemic bias, but is still annoying). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, it recieved worldwide coverage and is a historic event. Sahaib (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is still not a head of state or head of government position, and the process, while lengthy, did not break any records. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but I don't think a consensus would build on this one (as seen in the plethora of oppose votes on this particular nomination and the previous ones). Vida0007 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It appears this has become another debate on whether or not ITN is being too America-centric. If I am to offer a controversial opinion, I think an election like this holds more weight because it is American, and like it or not, internal American politics have a gigantic impact on the rest of the world. This is literally In The News, is being talked about, and will have a considerable effect on not only American congress, but the world. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am quite aware that the US version of Speaker has quite a bit more power and/or influence than those in equivalent positions in other countries, but given that this is a Republican majority electing a Republican Speaker, I can't see that it rises to the level of ITN. The only thing that made it even vaguely "in the news" was that the process was somewhat more torturous than usual - would we have posted it if McCarthy had been elected in the first round? Almost certainly not; so I can't see why a bit of internecine squabbling gives us any more reason to do so. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm usually a proponent of "we should look at what's actually in the news for In The News", but in this case, it's still an election for a federal legislative body's leader of the person who was always going to win that election. The impact is minimal, and the historic aspect of how long it's been since such a protracted election took place is nothing more than a piece of trivia in the long-run. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't fall under WP:ITNR, and I'm not convinced that the fact it took a few days longer than usual makes this an exception. My !vote has nothing to do with country. — Coolperson177 (message | about me) 13:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Najor story in reliable news outlets. This was an exceptional event. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Arguing that something that is objectively in the news (it was for example the first item on my German news broadcast) should not be ITN because of some arbitrary restrictions is silly. There is no rule that ITN cannot cover this event and just because we previously did not, does not mean we can't. In fact, the very reason we did not feature previous elections was that they were run of the mill elections that were not in the news. And yes, we should and would not have featured this one if McCarthy had won on the first attempt. But that is the whole point. He did not and in the end, it was the most contested election in over 150 years with news top of the page coverage all around the world (e.g. Tagesschau.de (Germany), LeMonde (France), Corriere della Sera (Italy), El Pais (Spain), Times of India, Japan Times, Sidney Morning Herald (Australia) etc. pp.). I would suggest emphasizing the historicity of the vote in the blurb, e.g. by mentioning it needing the most attempts since 1859-60. Regards So Why 13:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The non-election was rightly rejected, as would have been the non-weird election, but an election after 14 non-elections is weird enough to be In The News for several days in Canada (and elsewhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This farce was very entertaining but I don't think it rises to an ITN level of significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A non-McCarthy win would have been notable enough, but this is basically just a routine procedure that happened to take a few days longer than usual. Teemu08 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Turned into a big nothing-burger. Noah^Talk 14:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has 15 layers of cheese and spam. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've still gotta have the beef, my friend. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a quarter-pound of beef over whether to beef up tax enforcement or beef up border security. More "manufactured" than "organic", of course, but that's life in Washington. Nothing's been squashed, even if "quashed". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildup to this is just political realignment. As HiLo said once again, this is not something we would see posted in other countries. I'm sympathetic to votes that complain about anti-American bias, but the fact is that the event on its own still needs to demonstrate significance, and I'm not certain that it does. This is evident by several of the oppose !voters asking where the long-term significance behind this non-ITN/R election is, and not getting a straightforward answer. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multiple votes have not happened in a century, and there are election results and leadership changes from other countries all the time at the legislative level, let alone from the country that has the largest GDP and is a world leader in numerous other categories. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing blockade of Artsakh[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 6 Template:Cob

• Support event been ongoing for a while, seems to be important enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the third time this has been nominated in as many weeks. Additionally, your second to last sentence in the nom is leaning into aspersion-territory. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll remove that, but I will say that consensus sometimes cannot form because a topic is related to a very hot conflict, which I do not think is a legitimate reason to keep something out of ITN, and that if it does, then something is broken here. RaffiKojian (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You've already nominated this, and consensus did not form to post. There are other far more extreme conflicts going on around the world right now. Being argumentative and making accusations is not going to win your proposal additional support. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality... again. "and even", "gives additional reason to doubt", etc. Blockade timeline is also pretty much just a dotpoint list. Anarchyte (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. Oppose on article tile and article quality. This was already nominated, with no consensus, and that seems unlikely to change. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 06:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not being regularly updated. Most recent update in timeline appears to be from Dec 31, so this would not meet criteria to stay on Ongoing. Previously was interested in a blurb item for this, but no consensus for this at a previous nomination, and IMO a blurb for this would now be stale. Spencer^T•C 07:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I personally support this, but I think it is going to keep getting shot down as long as it uses the 'Artsakh' title. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing, fairly minor compared to other news happening around the world, article needs work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - On quality and notability, and per others. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So am I allowed to withdraw the nomination? It seems there's a consensus :/ Either way I would appreciate feedback on what specifically the article could use in terms of improvements so I can try to work on it (you alls help would be fantastic as well). And yes, maybe be back in a week - though I really hope it's not ongoing by then. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Template:Abot[reply]

January 6[edit]

RD: Owen Roizman[edit]

(Posted) RD: Danny Kaleikini[edit]

Support article is ready to go _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Snow[edit]

Support - article is in good shape - should be posted. Nfitz (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handful of {cn} tags in the prose. Many bullet-points after the prose are unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dick Savitt[edit]

Support, the article looks good to go. Sahaib (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the guy looks like he's quite famous and yes, should probably be on there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Squattuh (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Grand Slam Finals/Performance Timeline needs a reference (didn't see it mentioned in the prose or covered by a ref there). Spencer^T•C 17:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tables lack sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shen Lyu-shun[edit]

Support Well-cited. Mostly holistic, besides a big hole between 1981 and 2008; that said, the important bits are well-covered. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping I was able to find some more information about that period in between and have added that to the article. Spencer^T•C 07:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good for RD. NMasiha (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gianluca Vialli[edit]

Support, article seems fine. Sahaib (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks decent and should be good to go once the cn tags are fixed. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No major issues with the article that I can see, looks like missing refs were fixed. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 19:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ready to go. Vida0007 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well referenced enough now Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 5 Template:Cob

Oppose and snow close no, not again. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it is notable. BBC News, the world's largest broadcast news organisation, covered it extensively and is still covering it. Sahaib (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, perhaps list it as Ongoing until one is elected??? This hasn't happened since pre-Wikipedia. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is notable by any definition of the word. The most powerful government in the world is unable to function. Initial opposition seemed to think that it would blow over quickly but it hasn't. As such we should post this like we should any instance when a stable government is rendered unable to govern. Idislikenames (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to point out again that 'notable' is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, not inclusion on its homepage. Using it as a generic 'hooray-word' diminishes the utility of its particular application in WP:GNG and similar places. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and snow close This is getting quite obnoxious. A repeat nomination only 2-3 days after the previous one is over the top. This is a global encyclopedia and whether or not the US is the "most powerful government in the world", this perception of power is not relevant for ITN purposes. It's difficult to believe a similar nomination for the position of speaker in most countries would be posted to ITN. Most people would just have the common sense not to nominate it in the first place. Chrisclear (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over the top given that going past 11 ballots hasn't happened since before the Civil War. Since there doesn't appear to be an end in sight, it's technically an ongoing event at this point, so if it doesn't get a blurb, it should at least be placed there. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability isn't the election. Your right nobody outside of the US cares about who is the speaker of the house. The notability is that the government is incapable of action. I'd like to think we would at least nominate any event where any government was rendered unable to take any action. Idislikenames (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point in theory, but thanks to the Separation of Powers, the US has a functioning executive branch and thus the government can continue to take action. However, it's my recollection that during the 2010 UK government coalition negotiations, we posted an interim 'Conservatives have the plurality' headline for the election itself, and then replaced it with 'Cameron becomes PM' one once the negotiations were done. The fact of the negotiations themselves didn't make the home page. In this case, we already posted both the legislative result (in 2022) and the head of state/government one (in 2020). This more junior role wouldn't make the headline when elected, so it certainly shouldn't when not elected. I'd also be interested in knowing what we've done about the government stalemates in Belgium over the years. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. For better or worse, ITN doesn't post things just because they're in the news, we assess the significance of them. And just like the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, which gained a lot of headlines but was eventually pulled from ITN, the ongoing comedy at the House of Representatives is peculiar and unusual but not of lasting significance. The Republicans control the House, we already posted that some time ago, and who ultimately becomes Speaker isn't something we'd ever usually post. The oft-quoted adage about "better suited to DYK" probably applies to this article. — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We did NOT post the results of the House election. Or more accurately, we DID post the results, but then it was pulled and never posted back despite many of us asking for it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 11:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support, or alternatively, as per DrewieStewie, post in Ongoing. This IS In the News, and most of the opposition seems to be arguing that we wouldn't post this if it was happening in another country, and that's simply not true. We posted Truss' resignation, and Johnson's resignation, even before they actually did resign, and even before the new PM was chosen. This is no different; in fact, it's the same basic process. The Speaker is not as powerful as a PM, since the PM is head of Government and the executive, that is true, but until a Speaker is chosen, the House cannot do anything whatsoever, which has paralyzed half of the Legislative branch of the US Government. That's notable, especially since this hasn't happened since 1923 -- before any of us were alive (I'm guessing). I find that ITN has a huge bias against posting American news (for example, we posted, and then pulled, the blurb announcing that the GOP had won the House). It's annoying, I know people are trying to avoid systemic bias, but that doesn't mean we should go the other way on this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify my thinking: the reason this was closed before was that while three rounds of voting was historic (it was the first time it had happened since 1923), it wasn't notable enough for ITN and it was looking likely that the GOP's temper-tantrum would end and the far-right members of their caucus would fall in line. Now though we're on 11 rounds and there's no end in sight, and the House has not been able to do basic business (like put people on committees). That's why it's been proposed: it's now a story with actual effects. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support if not a blurb, then ongoing. I think people are missing the point here. The story here is the historic nature of this deadlock, not the deadlock itself. The longer it goes on, the more of a story it is. This is getting worldwide attention, not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. So long as this portion of the Main Page isn't named "body counts, national elections, and sporting results", there is a place for items about unusual, highly newsworthy events. And despite the continued insistence of some, "avoiding US-centrism" still does not mean "pretending that things that happen in the U.S. aren't important". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 100 years since this last happened. That's newsworthy. Anarchyte (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still don't see this as having an overall impact, so far it just seems to be bulls on parade. We can wait until it causes an impact on the wider public (government shutdown, default, gigantic custard pie fight, power-sharing agreement) and then post. Blythwood (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. The editors above speak of an impact on the governance of the country but don't point out what the actual, ongoing consequences of this are. It just seems that the most salient thing now is the symbolism and the (irrelevant and typical) party political drama. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U The House can do nothing else until this is resolved, paralyzing the government of a large country. Some of those in Congress holding this up see this as desirable. Even the Senate can do nothing other than confirm judges until this is resolved(bills they pass can't be voted on by the House). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but the President of the United States continues to maintain executive powers and the States continue to legislate thanks to the -enviable- federal constitutional system. So there is no "paralyzed government" at all. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something urgent comes up that the President need a new law to address, the government is paralyzed. This is why it is reported as such. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This proposal was already closed below. But more than that - we don't post this when they succeed in electing a Speaker; why on earth would we post when they fail? GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Because they have not only not failed in 100 years, but are failing in a historical manner. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'In a historic manner' is a bit WP:CRYSTAL for my tastes. We have no way of knowing, yet, whether history will view this as an amusing footnote, or part of 'events leading up to...' with lots of flags and arrows. And many things occur for the first time, or the first time after a long hiatus, without making the front page. The relevance of the long duration presupposes the relevance of the event itself. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not looking forward to see it's historical, it's looking backward. I believe this selection is already sixth on the list of most ballots required to choose a speaker(and it could increase further today)- and again, this hasn't happened in 100 years. Saying we don't know how the future will view this is an argument to not post anything at all about any event. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the election is finished. I was leaning towards oppose at first, but I am currently rethinking my stance on this one; however, if this would be blurbed, I think there should be a definitive result first, much like in other elections that have been blurbed in the past. For the suggestion to put this as “ongoing,” I would support that in theory, although I think that should have been done last Tuesday/Wednesday as it now appears that a deal between McCarthy and the rebel Republicans is about to be reached. Vida0007 (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A parliament unable to choose a Speaker is not notable. This is a domestic issue. doktorb _words^deeds 12:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW only applies if the consensus is very clearly swinging unanimously towards oppose. This is not the case here with multiple substantive support !votes. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed :) doktorb _words^deeds 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We couldn't post this as a blurb, because if we post it and they happen to successfully elect a Speaker the following day, it would immediately become dated. At that point, the discussion would then turn to either pulling the blurb or updating it to reflect the successful election. And I might not be best friends with Template:U, but he's 100% right - we wouldn't ever consider this for any other country.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would. I absolutely would. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear, but we need to actually go out and nominate those other instances in order to provide a data point, otherwise we are just talking hypotheticals. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Per Vida0007. The election will be notable once we get a result, as of now it's just some more domestic political drama PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Notable news. Alex-h (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: too US-centric. This is not really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things; they don't have a speaker right now because of some in-party squabbling, which is an oddity, but presumably they will have one soon and life will go on as if nothing happened. If similar, offbeat domestic politicking were happening in say the parliament of Brazil or Indonesia (which have populations comparable to the US), I highly doubt we'd be here having this discussion. Endwise (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We wouldn't post a new speaker even if they had been elected on the first attempt, so 'no speaker has been selected yet' is even less of a story. I don't think ITN has ever posted the selection of speaker for any other legislature, let alone deadlocked selection processes. Just because the US House has disfunctional procedures, and we're currently in a quiet new period, doesn't mean we should treat it any differently. Modest Genius ^talk 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Template:EC. I disagree with those who think this is not newsworthy, US-centric or whatever. It's something that has not happened in more than 150 years and something that has attracted coverage all around the world in a way that normally internal proceedings of a national parliament do not (e.g. SZ.de (Germany), LeMonde (France), even the Italian Corriere which dedicates most of his homepage to the death of Gianluca Vialli speculates on what will happen). However, I agree that the news story is more about how long it took, so we should wait until the proceedings finish; ideally, we also know then how historical it really was. Regards So Why 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would point out that this more significant than similar instances in the parliamentary system, as the speaker is considerably more powerful. The news here is the MAGA movement has triggered such a schism in the two-party system that is it now preventing governance for the first time in a century. This is the most salient symbol yet demonstrating that we are not merely witnessing intra-party squabbling, but the unmaking of the America political system. HOWEVER, this is just a moment in that long process; not the beginning or end. A Speaker will be chosen eventually, but it will do nothing to settle the conflict. The concessions being sought show the splinter group intends to keep the new speaker on a very short leash. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

January 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Nate Colbert[edit]

Support Sufficient sourcing and coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Well sourced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) World Juniors[edit]

Comment - Did we blurb the 2022 Championship? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Much as I enjoy ice hockey, ITN has consistently avoided posting junior-level competitions in any sport. We stick to the highest level of competition in each sport and that's not a convention I want to change. The IIHF World Championship is already on WP:ITNR; I don't see a case for posting the under-20s version as well. Besides, this year's competition wouldn't have got anywhere near as much attention if Canada didn't make the final (or if Bedard wasn't playing). Modest Genius ^talk 13:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As much as this is true, and I also agree with this - the Olympics is an obvious exception as not being the highest level of sport. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality. Not sure if this meets notability, but the DIII section needs work either way. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the top level in the sport. I am generally opposed to any junior-level sporting events being posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Events that are not top-level can be posted if they have a large following, e.g. NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament. Is there evidence that anything similar applies here?—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

RD: Buddhi Wickrama[edit]

Oppose for now Article length is fine for our purposes. However, the "Selected television serials" and "Filmography" sections are almost entirely unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Quentin Williams[edit]

Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I do not see any sourcing or other issues. Sahaib (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD Relatively short but career was cut short early by his premature death. Spencer^T•C 17:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Chapo's son arrested[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 4 Template:Cob

As a general rule, we refrain from posting arrests to ITN. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks for telling me. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Single arrests are generally not posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Blurb has been updated. This is far beyond a single arrest; there was a huge gunfight in Mexico where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. Article is updated. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have subsequently seen further reporting on this, corroborating the extensive battle. I now support this proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Didnt he get arrested a while ago? Koltinn (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping He was arrested and shortly released during a gunfight with the military. I kindly ask you re-evaluate the blurb again since much more as updated. There was a huge gunfight in Mexico where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose and suggest close~~ per above. Obviously good faith nomination but based on longstanding precedent here I don't think there is any chance that a consensus to post will develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Hi there - There have been more developments since your vote. There was a huge gunfight in an attempt to free him where 29 people were killed, including 10 soldiers (which is unusual). There were attacks to commercial airplanes, looting of businesses, road blocks set by cartels with burning vehicles, etc. If this is enough to reconsider your decision, please let us know as others have as well. Thanks, MX (✉

Striking my oppose and moving to neutral based on recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ✎) 23:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ - As much as I think Mexico's drug war is under-represented and I would want this posted on the mainpage, ~~I don't think this passes the bar.~~ The first arrest could have, given that Culiacan went under siege by cartel members and Ovidio was also released by higher government orders to avoid more bloodshed. That arrest, release, and the chaos that ensued was notable. But this re-arrest may not be as notable standalone. There's another Mexico story that could make it to the mainboard if we expand and nominate: 2023 Ciudad Juárez prison attack. Ping me if you want to work on this together. MX (✉ • ✎) 02:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment, conditional support~~ Support - I would support this for a blurb if there an article on the arrest and aftermath. The Sinaloa Cartel carried out several attacks in Culiacan and authorities cancelled flights and travel throughout the entire state. There were road blockades with burning vehicles in 19 points across the city, in addition to attacks to airplanes, businesses, etc. It was similar to the 2019 incident but at a smaller scale, yet still notable. MX (✉ • ✎) 05:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was for this reason I nominated it. The arrest seems to have caused a lot of civil unrest in Sinaloa. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arrests in itself are not notable. But arrests where large organize crime groups cause civil unrest across an entire state in Mexico, that is notable. These arrests and violent aftermaths are very particular to Mexico and are still quite rare (i.e. reserved for top cartel bosses). This was on the front page of international outlets. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as this has claimed 29 lives, unfortunately. We've posted nominations of this threshold before. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Not a notable news. Alex-h (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping How so? I think others would appreciate your opinion instead of a drive-by oppose. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with new altblurb following battle, nom might be relevant enough to meet requirements now. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If violence continues over the next few days, it may be more logical to put in Ongoing. Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Official sources claim there were 29 dead (10 soldiers, 19 cartel members) and 35 injured. An Aeroméxico Embraer jet was shot at while taxiing and was forced to abort take-off. Generalized unrest and looting were also present. Several blockades in Culiacán, Los Mochis, and Mazatlán etc. It was a major event in the Mexican Drug War. --2806:109F:1:2923:D578:C5DF:76F7:7F10 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1. This is more akin to a battle in a military conflict than an arrest. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as Ready. With 4 Supports (5 if you include nom), and 2 Opposes that were made prior to this story's development, this is ready for the main page. Article has been updated. MX (✉ • ✎) 01:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The unrest occurring is major enough for an article. I created a draft: 2023 Sinaloa unrest. Thriley (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support for only ALT1 or ALT2, as that provides necessary context.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2. The newsworthy thing isn't necessarily just his arrest, it's more the violent military conflict that has ensued. Endwise (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His arrest is not notable, the clashes following the arrest are, so I'd like to see 2023 Sinaloa unrest bolded, but it is not of sufficient quality. So for now, I oppose posting. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 06:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with above that the unrest article is the appropriate target, but it needs rewritten to an encyclopedia format. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt Blurb 2. Many victims makes it notable for main page. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 4[edit]

RD: David Gold (businessman)[edit]

Comment: Needs a couple citations, resolution of the orange tag, and the bullets about children should be converted to prose. Additional detail about his business career would be a plus but what's there meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 00:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alan Mackay-Sim[edit]

Comment: Need expansion regarding area of research interest. Spencer^T•C 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rosi Mittermaier[edit]

This is still breaking news, let's wait for facts to settle, - I ran into edit conflicts so will certainly not be the only one, and I only did the normal adjustments, have a sentence about her death with a ref, fix tenses, fix the place of birth. She has in German what would be a Good article here, - I hope for someone to get some of that here. I have no time, at least not right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems to be complete and sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready Some major prose issues; the article contradicts itself (Template:Green vs Template:Green); formatting, while generally out-of-scope for our purposes, needs a redux due to the very short paragraphs and sections. ~~Additionally, the results sections need to be sourced (WP:ITNQUALITY)~~. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction was there only for minutes, while fixing an edit conflict. It would have been easier to do that than making a note here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see the page history so I was just commenting on the current version; I typed out that op before I saw your message above, as well. Curbon7 (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done Grimes2 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lede mentions that she was a "sports ambassador and non-fiction writer" but I don't see that mentioned elsewhere in the article. Any chance we can incorporate any of the info from the de.wiki article into this one? Spencer^T•C 18:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took that from the German Wikipedia. The "writer" part is covered by the section Publications, and the other is perhaps a euphemism for advertising, will change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per [33] which also has that in 1997 she was a declared a national ambassador for sports, but I believe that is kind of marginal. Please add if you disagree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sim Wong Hoo[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 3 Template:Cob

Support Looks good to post. Rest in peace, Sim. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article looks good, I support. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 08:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 3[edit]

RD: Joseph Koo[edit]

There are multiple {cn} tags in the prose. The bullet-points after the prose need footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 PDC World Darts Championship[edit]

Comment Largely good but a few issues in the representation section. TartarTorte 23:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the representation section is fixed. Unnamelessness (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to existing tagged WP:OR concerns in the "National representation" section. The issue looks the same in last year's page too at 2022 PDC World Darts Championship#Representation. As an aside, as MOS issues are not considered "orange level" for WP:ITNCRIT, there are MOS:FLAG concerns for the entire page, at a minimum: Template:Tq2—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Representation section has since been WP:REFBOMBed,[34]. it still lacks sources that support this breakdown of rounds by nationality. As such, it remains WP:OR and an WP:UNDUE representation.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of flags. While they are fine for competitors, their use on the TV stations fails MOS:FLAGS (there is no national representation there) Masem (t) 22:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ITN/R, article is of good quality. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality looks good, especially as there is adequate and well-referenced prose describing the event itself (usually the major hold-up for most of these kinds of events). --Jayron 32 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is in excellent shape. I've removed the orange-level tag from the 'representation' section because I don't think it was warranted - simple counting is not original research per WP:CALC. Modest Genius ^talk 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page issues regarding that section were still not resolved. I've placed an NPOV tag there. —Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue on the talk page is you demanding a reference that splits all the competitors down by nationality. Given there are already references for the nationality of every player, and counting them is not original research, I still don't see the issue. There's certainly no signs of any NPOV problems. There's nothing that would merit an orange-level tag or should hold up posting on ITN. Modest Genius ^talk 11:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR item and article's in good shape. The Kip (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Violates MOS:FLAGCRUFT as there seem to be over 500 of them. As I understand it, this is a professional event in which competitors represent themselves rather than a country. Giving undue weight to flags in this way is excessive nationalism contrary to WP:NPOV. One might equally have symbols representing their age, ethnicity, religion, sex or other characteristics. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've ever seen FLAGCRUFT invoked in an oppose vote at ITN/C, including for the egregious F1 articles. If you want to suggest we change that practice, I'll vote for it. But we shouldn't hold this nomination to a standard that does not exist. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some flag-waving at F1 Grand Prix such as the national anthems at the podium ceremonies and the orange flares for Verstappen. But the teams are corporations rather than nations – Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull &c. I'm not so familiar with darts but, checking the BBC report, it all seems to be about the individuals with little emphasis on the nation, sponsor or the like. The hundreds of flags in this case are therefore not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:FLAGCRUFT, as above. We do expect mainpage articles to meet a certain minimal standard of quality, and I find nationalistic flag-waving particularly offensive. Sandstein 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOS:FLAGCRUFT as stated above. It's not enough that we have a prose update; remember quality also takes into consideration that the article has to meet encyclopedic standards. There's no reason for those flags to be listed there. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this event has been routinely posted with all the flags. F1 was just posted with a sea of flags. None of those noms even hint at this objection. This reeks of bad faith. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GreatCaesarsGhost. The flags are not an issue. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are if you are concerned about WP:NPOV, which is the policy that MOS:FLAGCRUFT cites. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was unaware that "must conform to every little piece of nonsense in the MOS" was a valid oppose rationale. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not believe that the article even violates MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Aside from anything else, the flags prevent the article from deteriorating into MOS:BLUESEA. The MOS specifically outlines how FLAGCRUFT can emphasise "the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities"—forgive me for asking which other qualities could possibly be overshadowed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not quote the full sentence from MOS:FLAGCRUFT: Template:Tq2 —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, I have every respect for you (and indeed Sandstein and WaltCip) but - and I apologise - this is possibly the most daft reason for opposing I've ever seen. It's a sporting event. Do the flags need to be there? Not really. Do the flags actually disqualify the article from being posted. No. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my opposition is specifically regarding the table in the section Template:Section link. That's pretty much WP:OR to push a POV, boasting nationalism on a per round basis, that is not presented as such in any other reliable sources. Delete the table, and I think I can give a pass, for ITN purposes, on the other issues.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Bagumba. This is relatively easy to resolve; the change being requested does not detract from the quality of the article while bringing it into compliance with MOS and WP:NPOV. The rest of the article is in good shape. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. In it's current state. The item is broken. We've long since gone past the times when a psuedo ranking list based on player performances by country has been deemed encyclopaedic, and the WP:FLAGCRUFT issues. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No longer oppose after fixing the issues with overdraw of templates. I've done quite a bit of work to make it usable, but there's still a lot of cruft in the article that I'd rather wasn't there before I could support. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed the biggest issue, which was the National representation table orange-tagged for neutrality. The rest of the flagcruft issues should be handled article-side, as it is generally out-of-scope for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tom Karen[edit]

Oppose Article is woefully underdeveloped. The career section lists basically a few random events from his life (some of which are entirely unreferenced!), many of the things in the lead are not visited in any sufficient detail (or even at all) in the body. This is not main-page ready. --Jayron 32 15:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Walter Cunningham[edit]

Support Apologies for reverting some IPs who updated the article but failed to supply a source. I was following discussion on Twitter, but it was unconfirmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Just saw this on CNN, so yes, it's confirmed. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality is sufficient. --Jayron 32 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article in fine shape. Skynxnex (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Speaker Election (US)[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Joesom333 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Wait until an outcome is achieved or the first day of this session has concluded before crafting a blurb. It is clear some type of unprecedented situation has taken place on this day, January 3, 2023, but we should wait to understand what it might be before deliberating on wording and notability. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question - Would we post something like this in any other country? I guess the question is whether or not the Speaker of the House is an important enough role where we'd be able to find some type of equivalent in other parliamentary or democratic nations. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the gears of government for a country were halted for an extended period of time, then yes I do believe it would be ITN worthy, even if it was not the U.S. We're not there at this point, but it is a possibility. The U.S. Congress cannot proceed with any business until a Speaker is selected. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most simplistically, the Speaker's job is to choose when and how to present legislation on the floor. Very powerful politically, but not quite a Head of Government in the same way a prime minister is. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "must pertain to the head of government" standard for ITN that I know of. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the head of government are WP:ITN/R, which is what I thought WaltClip was referring to. Obviously it can be ITN-worthy without meeting the ITN/R provision. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Something happening for the first time in a hundred years is not automatically ITN-worthy. What happens with the HoR leadership is strictly local, with no international impact or interest and is by far not the most relevant political news so far this year. Again: this is not a news journal. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No international impact"? The U.S. Congress is responsible for the nation's budgeting, spending, and declaration of war. So yes, it would have an international impact in areas such as military aid and international security. No one needs to show love to the U.S. but one shouldn't overcompensate with a bias against it either. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same is done by the rest of the parliaments that exist in the world. So what? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US is more important for international security and military aid than most other countries. Also, the fact that this only relates to a single country is not a valid reason to oppose it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean that every little thing that happens in the United States has to be magnified and focused on in every possible way. Leaving aside the too–much–known American patriotism is a good way to avoid WP:BIAS. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "little thing" though. This hasn't happened in 100 years. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and...? _-_Alsor (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a routine matter and it is indeed In The News everywhere. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"everywhere" because anything that happens in the USA has to be in the news (even a fly landing on the head of a vice president seeking re-election), no matter how irrelevant or globally insignificant it may be. The world is more concerned about sending delegations to Benedict XVI's funeral than about seeing what casino is going on inside the Capitol. And not everything that is not routine becomes ITNR-worthy. Nor is it the goal of ITN and it isn't technically feasible. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that everything that happens in the US has to be on ITN, but we are saying that just because it happened in the US doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted ITN. I felt that the excessive posts about Queen Elizabeth's death and state funeral, as well as the blurb about Truss' decision to resign followed by a second blurb for Sunak's election was excessive as an American, but I recognized that it was indeed ITN and deserved posting... as this does. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a good comparison. The examples you explain refer to a HoS and head of the Anglican Church, and a PM. In the case at hand, we are not even talking about executive power (although you say it may seem so). Biden's hypothetical death would have to be included in ITNR, in the same way as the appointment of his successor, and I personally wouldn't mind if it involved two or more blurbs. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would support if it broke that record of 133 ballots over two months, or went into an ongoing stalemate like Belgium 2010-11, where they took 541 days to negotiate a government. Blythwood (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Template:Ec unless and until it materially affects partisan government control. We posted the election result already. At the moment, this is just intra-party fractiousness; nobody is going to be materially affected as long as a Republican keeps the speakership. If that changes, we could consider posting. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we posted the result, and then it was pulled... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Trivia... good for did you know. Speaker isn't a role that's important enough for ITN anyways. Noah^Talk 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information - no business can be conducted in the U.S. Congress without a Speaker in place. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If business is actually substantially impacted by this, then that would be ITN worthy. The election itself is not. Noah^Talk 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker is also the third in line for the Presidency. Joesom333 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important to few outside the US since it isn't the head of state or head of government. We don't blurb anything other than general elections, changes of heads of government and state. Noah^Talk 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is news to me. Can you cite the rule where this is the case? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule as wikipedia doesnt have rules. This is just my observation of standard practice. Noah^Talk 22:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose As stated above, this is simply trivia at the moment.. Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is the first time this has happened in 100 years. But if we aren't going to post this as a blurb, could we consider posting it in ongoing? At least if it lasts longer than a day. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea given this may be a prolonged situation. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The House has adjourned until noon EST tomorrow without electing a Speaker. Joesom333 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support this going in Ongoing, but maybe we should wait until tomorrow to do so. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. At the moment this is little more than interesting trivia, but it has the potential to become something a lot more significant. ITN doesn't require international significance or involvement of the head of state, so those points are irrelevant, but it does require some actual impact on something significant. A day or two of intra-party political squabbling is nothing (waves from the UK) but the longer it goes on the more significant it gets. If the minority party's candidate were elected that too I think would be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is not the first time Mccarthy has failed, it seems. Back in 1923, 11 ballots were required so we should wait on an outcome and then see where we are. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Speaker is neither head of state nor head of government. We don't post the Leader of the House of Lords, and I don't think we should post this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker is the closest thing to a Prime Minister we have, though. Anyway, I doubt anyone is saying this should be posted as a routine matter. This is only notable because McCarthy has failed to get the votes he requires to become speaker, the first time this has happened in 100 years. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PM is the head of government in the UK while the speaker is not. The POTUS is the head of government in the United States. The Speaker is much weaker than the PM. The Speaker does not run the government in the US. Noah^Talk 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that. The Head of Government and Head of State are one in the same in the US system. Still, the Speaker does have tremendous power to block legislation within the House. That's what I mean by the Speaker being the closest thing the US has to a prime minister. If a Speaker is not chosen, then no legislation can ever be passed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US has a complex system of checks and balances so that one person does not have complete power. Switzerland is similar and we recently posted the result of a partial change: Swiss Federal Council. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is all very amusing, but the Republican Party's efforts at throwing toys out of their pram at each other does not rise to the level of an ITN blurb. Would we post a similar internecine spat from any other country? You know we wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent partial change of the Swiss Federal Council was posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss Federal Council=executive power. Speaker=legislative branch. Very substantial differences. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms though, are there? Congress is blocked from doing any business until the Speaker is chosen. But I think Andrew's point is that we post partial changes to the Executive all the time, why not post about the Legislature in unusual circumstances? If this happened in the UK, we would post it (because of the fusion of powers making the Prime Minister part of the Executive), we shouldn't not post it just because the US has a different setup. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Black Kite says below, it's something that in a very short time will be resolved, when some decide to stop crying and others decide to give in. If it's prolonged in time and the blockade to the legislative activity has irrevocable national and even international impacts, perhaps it would be time to rethink it. But this will not happen. And as for the debate you propose, I have no problem in discussing it. But we would be opening Pandora's box, and I don't think it would be appropriate. For example, would enter the blockage that has been in Spain to the renewal of the positions of institutions such as the Constitutional Court or the General Council of the Judiciary since 2018? I don't think so. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support but wait – The FAQ at Talk:United States reads:
Q5. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President?

The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox.

Because of this, I believe that the House speaker would qualify as a "head of state" as listed at WP:ITNR, but obviously we should at least wait until the winner has actually been decided. DecafPotato (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no way a similar event un any other country would even be nominated. A ridiculous nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you don't know what the Speaker of the House does... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the speaker of the house does in my country? HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker in Australia doesn't do as much as the Speaker in the US. Which might explain the argument here. The Speaker in the US has the power to block legislation. Beyond that, if the House fails to appoint a Speaker, it won't be able to do anything else, and the Speaker is not impartial like in your country. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the "impartiality" of the speaker in Australia. This isn't the place to discuss it. My point is simply that this is a flawed area of argument. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being non-American, I do know what the Speaker's role is, and this is still not ITN-worthy (unless a Democrat was appointed, which isn't going to happen). When they've stopped acting like children a Republican Speaker will be appointed. It's just taking ... a little longer than usual. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Does not rise to ITN level. If this were perhaps a dispute over a president's inauguration, for example, then that would be appropriate, but not with a position like Speaker. Kafoxe (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and per SNOW. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Damar Hamlin[edit]

Comment on nominators comment - He has not died yet, please do not assume the subject has died yet. —Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not exactly breathing... https://www.si.com/nfl/bengals/news/bills-safety-damar-hamlin-suffers-scary-injury-during-monday-night-football. I don't know where you think life ends, but this is pretty close. Maine 🦞 04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single tweet from one reporter is not WP:V, which is why it's not in the article. Please don't keep spreading this as fact. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does the blurb say "cardiac arrest?" It's not in any of the news sources given, and is not in the current article. Poor nomination. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor comment. Why don't you come up with something better, then, rather than just bashing it? Maine 🦞 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually being kind because there are multiple issues with the nomination. Not only was it an incorrect blurb but it was premature speculation about the death of the individual, which is very much a WP:BLP issue. - Fuzheado | Talk 05:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose Please don't be so callous as to assume he will die. We do not consider nominations prior to the event happening. If he were to pass away, then it would be considered for RD; though hopefully, we won't have an RD nom for him for another 50 years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the blurb needs to be changed to remove the reference to cardiac arrest, which isn't mentioned in sources about Hamlin. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Damar Hamlin, a safety for the Buffalo Bills, stops breathing following a hit received in the first quarter of an NFL football game against the Cincinnati Bengals" work better? There are plenty of news sources saying this, like this. Maine 🦞 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, as the blurb won't get posted anyways. By the very nature of sports, injuries happen. Bad injuries. This is a Clint Malarchuk-level injury. However, these are not quite what we cover here. Curbon7 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page says that it was on the top 25 report 2 times, so it looks like there is broad interest from the people who read Wikipedia (nerds like us who write it aside) in this sort of stuff. Should be on Wikipedia's main page. Maine 🦞 05:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what you are referring to with the comment "top 25 report 2 times." - Fuzheado | Talk 06:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a big box on the top of the talk page for the article on Christian Eriksen. Maine 🦞 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would one conclude from your comment that it was referring to Christian Eriksen? You have a peculiar set of practices. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slight disagree in that Malarchuk's game continued on later that night while this game is currently postponed indefinitely, but I do agree that this blurb should not posted at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the NHL at its finest. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would Support that. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to CNN is now saying that Hamlin went into cardiac arrest. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EcComment The closest parallel I can think of is Christian Eriksen#UEFA Euro 2020 cardiac arrest; did we post that to ITN? If so, then this might have a case for posting, but otherwise the only way I see this getting on ITN is if his injury proves fatal, and even then it would most likely be as RD and not a blurb. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply It was posted and closed as "No consensus." --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He hasnt even been reported to be dead, and its a BLP violation to be spreading a rumour like that. Dont think the collapse by itself is blurbable, and in the absence of any other information dont think this merits more discussion here. nableezy - 05:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Y'all are so weird. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. He's not dead and the nature of his injury is unclear. The article is likely to go undergo rapid changes over the next 12-24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless you're from the US this isn't major news. Many athletes sadly get seriously injured all the time, and just like we do not support retirements for ITN we should not report injuries either, however serious; more so for a sport only professionally played in 1 country. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. This discussion goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rajouri attacks[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 2 Template:Cob

Oppose Article has numerous issues and the attack’s scale doesn’t quite meet the standards of ITN/R. The Kip (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, What issues do you see in the article? I would be glad to fix this. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 04:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Article looks good. I see this in international news outlets like BBC as well. Clearly an escalation with a clear death count. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the sources above and the page title of "2023 Rajouri Terror attacks", it's not clear why the blurb is focused on the protests and not the attacks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, thanks for the comment. Actually, there are increasing protests across the region due to this terror attack, and today, on January 3, there were a number of calls for a shutdown or strike by various organisations across the region, in which many protests were called for today. That's why I focused on protests. But I was new to ITN, and if there can be any suggestions to improve it, I would love to do that.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Based on the sources cited, I just didn't see the protests being a major story yet to not have the blurb say how many were killed and by who (or even why, if known). —Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to oppose I've my doubts that terrorist attacks committed in a particularly volatile area like Kashmir are notorious if they only result in six deaths. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Template:U, The geography of Kashmir is a bit different; the Rajouri district is in the Jammu region, and there were no major attacks like this in past decades in this place, which makes this attack notable and significant. There are allegations of security lapses that gave rise to protests across the Jammu region and parts of the Kashmir valley. However, the whole region is generally known as "Kashmir," but inside Kashmir there are many subregions that may or may not be affected by the Kashmir conflict.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. Let's see what other editors think and if they can help convince me more. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blurb may need some tweaking, but the article is in good shape and definitely main page ready, and this is a story that is being appropriately covered by the news. --Jayron 32 14:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this results in an escalation of the India–Pakistan conflict over the following days. An act of violence on its own is not significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is big news and we should have big news on our front page. Just because this is not of interest to the West does not mean that it is not significant. Maine 🦞 04:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because this is not of interest to the West does not mean that it is not significant"

That's not the issue here; not to truly invoke WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but the issue is that disasters/attacks with this few deaths usually don't make ITNR, period. There's been plenty of mass shootings in the US and/or Europe that we haven't blurbed, due to low death tolls indicating a lack of overall significance. The Kip (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, you are confusing terms. ITN/R does not apply to disasters or incidents like this. It applies only to recurring items. Moreover, it's also not true that a low death toll alone will be the deciding factor in whether something like this gets posted. I can cite numerous examples of disasters with low or no death tolls that have still been posted due to extenuating circumstances. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Siddeshwar Swami[edit]

Support no issues. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, looks fine — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew Downes (composer)[edit]

Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced. Spencer^T•C 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3179 characters (527 words) "readable prose size", referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 14:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marilyn Stafford[edit]

Comment: Could use some copyediting. Spencer^T•C 17:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Horres[edit]

Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced. Spencer^T•C 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kelly Monteith[edit]

Oppose Filmography is entirely without sources, and career section is far too incomplete for posting. Needs some serious expansion and referencing to be main page ready. --Jayron 32 14:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ken Block[edit]

Support, RIP. Fixed the CN tags. Seems like all is good to go. TartarTorte 03:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at all ready. I added a bunch more cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added a few citations, not many CN tags left. Should be enough for RD. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Aside from the aforementioned Cns, some tables at Ken Block#Racing record are also unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OP fixed them. Good to go now. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Few outstanding issues. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per improvements - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Gold Coast helicopter crash[edit]

Oppose With only four fatalities I doubt it's ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Tragic and noteworthy, but not front-page material. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. A tragic event to be sure, but as transportation accidents go, this one does not warrant attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ad Orientem. The Kip (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This nomination had great intentions, but it is not worthy enough to be an ITN item. TomMasterReal^TALK 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Death does not establish notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 January 1 Template:Cob

January 1[edit]

RD: Art McNally[edit]

Comment Cited and expanded a bit.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are needed for a couple of bullet-points in the "Awards and honors" section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping It seems everything is referenced now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, BeanieFan11, for the extra footnotes. Upon further review, I find this wikibio in need of some rewriting, or some materials need to be re-arranged. The lead section is supposed to be a summary or highlights, and yet it has details not mentioned in the main prose. That one year in the NBA is trivia and looks out of place in the intro. NYT and WaPo call McNally the "father of instant replay", and yet this was just mentioned as a bullet-point in Awards section, not to mention that this is not an award. The Career section probably should be beefed up a bit to explain why McNally is a Hall of Famer. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a bit context on those lists of awards. The NYT mentions rule changes he implemented and video replay.[35].—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Martin Davis (mathematician)[edit]

Comment ~~Quite short and not very holistic. CN tag.~~ Curbon7 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work! Issues fixed, this appears to be ready. Curbon7 (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Template:Re I have taken a pass at expanding the article and have also fixed the CN tags. Meets minimum expectations for homepage. Please have a look when you have a moment. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please can an admin have a look at this one? It goes off the main page in ~60 minutes. Ktin (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gangsta Boo[edit]

Support. Looks to be well-sourced by now. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsourced discography.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Philippine airspace closure[edit]

Weak support – Impressive work on the article here. Based on quality alone, I would want to see this featured in ITN. However, I recognize that the impact and "encycopedic value" is lower than what we tend to admit here; the aftermath section doesn't suggest any long-term implications for this incident. No one died, tens of thousands of people just had a bad time this New Year's, and will hopefully move on. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable enough despite the good article. Does not leave a lasting impact since the problems have seemingly been fixed. I just had a flight cancelled last week as part of Southwest's >15,000 cancellations (compare to 361 here). The uproar it would elicit from some users if that article were nominated is funny to think about. Point being, mass flight delays and cancellations are unfortunately increasingly common. Belugsump (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Belugsump. Unnotable. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting, but routine. Belugsump's comparison with Southwest is relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Had this incident occurred on a different week I would vote "weak support". Article looks impressive, but I doubt that this is just as notable as the other current ITN items (Croatia joining the eurozone, Benedict XVI and Pelé dying, and the December 2022 winter storm). The airspace closure was notable and did have massive impact; it is also true that it became a huge news in the region as I think this was the first time it happened there. However, the closest precedent would be the Southwest Airlines flight delays (as brought up by Belugsump), which was not blurbed at all. Vida0007 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary, delayed flights aren't worthy enough to be an ITN item. TomMasterReal^TALK 21:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposethis is not for ITN. How many flights are canceled for strikes? We also don't post those.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's affected a population equal to a mid-sized town, not many events do that. We posted the Iceland volcano for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva[edit]

Support, great importance for the geopolitics of the americas and the planet earth itself - Otávio Astor Vaz Costa (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We posted the results of the election. Why do we have to post the winner being inaugurated? If we hadn't posted the results of the election, then we could do what we did for the results of Nepal's elections, but we have already posted it, so it would be unnecessary. - TomMasterReal^TALK 03:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember wikipedia posting about world leaders getting inaugurated when they got into power (US, UK, China, even Brazil with Temer and Bolsonaro).

We are talking about a historical president, in a historical election, in one of the biggest and most influential countries geopolically in the world. 179.83.196.117 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's back! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose already posted, and there was no particular drama/disruption of any consequence before the handover Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His election win was already posted in October.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

(Posted) RD: R. K. Krishna Kumar[edit]

Support Short but well referenced article Josey Wales^Parley 10:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 13:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anita Pointer[edit]

There's a lot of CN tags and lead issues. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "lead issues"? And there are no CN tags. 86.187.166.107 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sourcing and lead issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything seems to be sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 13:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank McGarvey[edit]

Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for REFs on how much he got paid as a professional footballer and what he did after retiring from football. --PFHLai (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I've edited and supplied refs where you requested Josey Wales^Parley 19:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new footnotes, Josey Wales. I'm not sure the Scotsman obit is strong enough for "later" in that sentence, but it's a minor issue. --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Croatia joins Eurozone and Schengen Area[edit]