---

Nominator's comments: Former Pope, probably a blurb. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb ec'd me on the nom, haven't checked the article yet. Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay, Wait Not really tagged, but significant referencing work needs doing. Kingsif (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb This one is obvious. Davey2116 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb for obvious reason. HurricaneEdgar 09:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, clearly. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb but not yet on quality that's so obvious. I've added a couple of CN tags and changed the proposed photo. I have always considered weird the ones with the background blurred. Aesthetically they are horrible. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as the former leader of a state and the only Catholic Pope who abdicated in several hundred years. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb Notability obvious. First pope to voluntary resign in almost a millenia. Religious leader of more than a billion Catholic for a considerable period. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Obviously. Vida0007 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both on quality grounds. When the unsourced points and unreliable sources are addressed, I will support blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the most influential Pontiffs of his time. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 10:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb clearly appropriate for a former Vatican king and leader of the largest denomination of Christianity. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't 'Vatican king' - there is not and never has been such a title. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City is an Absolute Monarchy with the Pope as Head of State, making him King. This isn’t a fact that’s up for debate. Spman (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwash. It's an elective monarchy (you don't need capitals for the names of types of government, by the way), and not every monarch is a king or queen. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg isn't, the princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein aren't, the Emperor of Japan isn't, and nor is the Pope. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb once fixed It's the (former) Pope. What else needs saying? However, the article as it stands could use some restructuring, and there are enough missing citations that it would be inappropriate to post. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There will be a consensus to post a blurb but at least the honors and awards section needs to be fixed first. Otherwise, the article is excellent. --Tone 10:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb—An ex-Pope is sort of a given. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb As per the above. Compusolus (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and comment - Highly notable and now historical figure. However, I would consider linking the article Death and Funeral of Pope Benedict XVI in the blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. Multiple "needed" tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk)
• Support blurb One of the most important religious leaders on earth. -TenorTwelve (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb obviously. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still not ready Honros & Awards is almost completely unreferenced, and besjdes tthat, there are nearly 10 CN tags left. We don't need to debate whether or not he's deserving of a blurb- of course he is- but nobody who has just said "Support blurb" seems to have actually looked at the article. We need people who care enough about the subject to find references. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Clearly obvious. Also, RIP to him Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb once referencing issued sorted (now down to 6 CNs and 1 section) Josey Wales ^Parley 12:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No CNs left now, I will try to get to awards section this evening (UTC) if not already fixed by then Josey Wales ^Parley 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Several cite tags and an uncited section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blub Extremely notable death, easy blurb. I have added a link to Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI in the blurb. echidnaLives - talk - edits 12:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Extremely notable death. Thingofme (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alted Easier target to clean up, more timely. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands, it reads like his death has begun. SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick with the original blurb. That is the standard format for death blurbs of any kind. No need to add extra fluff.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not standard, he's the pope. When people have notable funerals, that's saying something (everyone has an age). And his death has begun, it's his life that's over. Anyway, just a suggestion. I'm also OK with the boring standard line. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'His death has begun' is not idiomatic for describing a person who is fully dead, in any dialect of English I know. The death-and-funeral article is linked in the original blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an event, yeah, he's no longer dying. He is now in the state of death, among the dead, however you say. In any words, the death and funeral seem more timely still, should (in my opinion) be the bolded news. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb The death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI begins in Rome is just not gramatically correct. He died, so death can't begin. The funeral did not begin too, only plans and preparations for funeral. Choosing this as target article is one thing, phrasing is another. It is in blurb anyway. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not set in stone, it was the best I could do without piping. You want to pipe something, go for it. But just as a general bit of advice, I'm telling you, death begins at death as surely as life begins at birth/conception/what-have-you. It's one of those weird things about English, like how two moose are moose. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's grammatically wrong. He died: this is not ongoing; like "his death" it is a singular event. "He is dead" is an ongoing state. There is nothing weird about the English on this! SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dead" is the adjective for those in the lasting noun of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the death/funeral is not taking place "in Rome" as the alt blurb states. It is taking place in Vatican City, which is another entity entirely. Throw this whole blurb out. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about I just fix that for you and you don't choose it? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD and blurb once fixed - Per above. The original blurb with the added link is better than the altblurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Obviously Pope Benedict's death should be featured in ITN, but the way the alt blurb is phrased is odd. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Thriley (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With the honors trimmed down and cited, the only cn tags appear in the election to papacy section, and they appear to be trivial. Posting now. --Tone 15:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the six outstanding cite tags were so "trivial", why weren't they fixed before posting? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI should be bolded. Of course, obvious support.VR _talk 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we should use the title "Emeritus", rather than "Former", since that is how he wanted to be treated. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wanted to be and officially was, so agreed. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI (pictured) dies at the age of 95? Or Pope Emeritus? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Pope Emeritus' is the usual style, and I think we should use it here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, “Pope Emeritus” is the formula we should use in the blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Let's stick with plain language. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former and emeritus have different meanings. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We wouldn't blurb "Former Queen X" if we meant "Dowager Queen X." Emeritus is a distinction with a real difference. Dr Fell (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image? Thank you for posting before I even got to searching for references. Can he be pictured, please. We've sen two pics of Pelé already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support an image. (If either of the other death-blurb nominations below succeeds, we could perhaps rotate the images, but we've had Pelé for a bit now.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Little late, but oppose blurb. Why would we blurb a former head of state or a church who died of old age? nableezy - 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was massively influential in his field. Even as a cardinal he was very prominent and influential, and then he was elected to the highest post in the billion-plus member organisation he belonged to, and then he made history by being the first Pope in centuries to resign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont quite get how he was "massively influential" in any field tbh, and his resignation probably was ITN when it happened. I dont get how old retiree dies is front page blurb worthy. Much less with a photo. nableezy - 17:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it more about his continuing decomposition and journey through Purgatory, but failed miserably. In the end, the people get what the people want. This time, like other times, they want old age! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(?) This is a major event that affects Catholics worldwide, former Pope or not. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? In what world is any Catholic affected by this? nableezy - 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The death of any pope would warrant a blurb, regardless of perceived influence. Not all states and churches (nor their leaders) are equal. Suggesting this is 'old man dies' is inaccurate. Dr Fell (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, inaccurate? He hasnt been pope in almost a decade, he is a former head of state (being generous with the term state). We dont blurb former heads of state when they die of old age. A current head of state, like the current pope, sure. This is firmly old man dies of being old. nableezy - 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was the very first Pope to resign in 600+ years. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We did with the former Angolan dictator. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And George H.W. Bush. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 05:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Post posit my support of blurb The pope, of course, has the level of fame to merit a blurb, as will any pope. 65.246.72.70 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Clearly a serious event. If there's some uncited tags, it should be cited by now. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

 FK8438 (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wasn't this a few days ago? At least, I read it a few days ago and I don't think I have psychic news apps. (They were hopefully better sources than VOA China, too) Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: As far as I know, the original vote planned to dissolve the presidency on 4 January 2023 (while maintaining structures to keep foreign assets), but another vote took place yesterday to confirm the decision. Based on the sources I'm reading, the decision has been made effective just after the vote. Here's a Reuters source, too: Venezuela opposition removes interim President Guaido. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, I didn't think it would warrant ITN when I first saw it, so it's rather immaterial really that it got re-confirmed. Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as per article, his presidency was not universally recognized and some countries (the EU members) do not recognize him anymore after he lost his position as head of parliament. So, this is really an internal political story. --Tone 10:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would support this if there was a different blurb and the linked article was the Venezuelan presidential crisis. "Deposed" is not a neutral term, and more context would be useful. Marking the end of the presidential crisis, however, is newsworthy. (edit conflict) --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I do think the story is notable, neither the Juan Guaido nor the Venezuelan presidential crisis articles are in any shape to be posted. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The blurb is misleading, making it sound as though a sitting president has been deposed by his opponents. In fact, the opposition faction has dissolved its own shadow presidency as part of moves to normalise the nation's political situation. As such, I don't think this merits posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - The blurb as currently phrased is misleading or incorrect, and I think trying to construct a more accurate blurb would be more likely to confuse our readers than interest them. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Added altblurb - To more accurately convey the situation. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on notability. Nothing has changed on the ground. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb Guaido was not "deposed," but the end of the presidential crisis and opposing governments is notable. The Kip (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any expert in Latin American politics around here? The article states that the Venezuelan presidential crisis ends on 5 January of this year with the end of Guaidó's pseudo-presidency. But I, without being an expert, have my doubts that this movement of the opposition will lead to an end of the crisis and not to a simple replacement of leadership that maintains the dispute and the tension. If this will put an end to this stage of the Venezuelan crisis, I support this nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The opposition government didn’t just vote to remove Guaido, but to dissolve itself, ending the presidential crisis at least. There won’t be a successor, and Maduro is effectively the sole government of the country now. The Kip (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The elections for the leader of the house are at the start of each year. The house have voted to agree - twice - that when it comes, they will change all roles (not allowing the incumbents to run) and, thus, dissolve the acting government. That will end the dispute of the presidency. It will not end tensions, of course, but there is an end date to the crisis of different groups recognising different people (which the opposition has realised is unsustainable and possibly doing more harm to the people than the alternative is, bad as the alternative is and bad as relinquishing the challenge is.) Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it! Thanks! The end of a presidential crisis that mobilized the international community is ITN-worthy, and by far. The article is sufficiently quoted and up to date. Support altblurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality due to the quality of the articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD: This is a given, while I would even Support Blurb for her stature in the whole world broadcasting legacy she has made for women.GovernmentAssistant (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD: Her legacy in broadcasting, interviewing every US president from Nixon to Biden (Albeit Trump and Biden were before being president) makes this one a given. Weak oppose blurb Probably a hard case to make. Might make more sense with some further discussion. TheCorriynial (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I made a procedural addition of a blurb to the nom, since there have been multiple comments already.—Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD & Blurb: RD is a no brainer. Support Blurb role in breaking barriers for women and being a legendary broadcaster. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb: I don't think quite top-tier influential/transformative in her field, and, to me, "legendary" and "breaking barriers" is news-speak that doesn't tell us too much. I don't think she has much of a worldwide legacy - she was well-known broadcaster in North America but she is utterly known outside of it, and I do think that counts for something if we are talking about a journalist's impact. Humbledaisy (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Blurbs should only be considered when there could be a separate article on the death and/or funeral of the person. Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abductive: That's never been the status quo. If someone is a significant enough figure in their field (e.g. Pelé), we post them. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You will note that Pelé had worldwide news media attention earlier for just being sick, and therefore meets the rule that for a blurb there needs to be suffiecient sourcing for an article on their death and/or funeral. Pelé's article also has just had 2.5 million pageviews in two days. He is orders of magnitude more important than most blurb nominees. Stop nominating doomed RD blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb: I don't think she was notable and impactful to such a degree to warrant being on top of the In the News Category. She still however was a trailblazer in many ways so a RD listing is certainly required. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD - close to blurb-worthy but just shy imo. Though I do think some of the above comment understates her significance a bit. And we dont have a Death of Pele article either, though that was an obvious blurb. nableezy - 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RD on quality at the moment; oppose blurb or we'll need to be blurbing every veteran national newsreader from around the world. Frankly, even in 20th century American broadcast journalism as an industry, I'm not sure she's even the most prominent woman - Nancy Dickerson, no? She had a great career and impact within a limited sphere, but if Pelé is obvious and Vivienne Westwood is debatable, Barbara Walters is a firm no, I'm afraid. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any honest assessment of her career will show that Barbara Walters was not a mere "newsreader." - Fuzheado | Talk 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're replying to the wrong person. Either that or read my comment like Swiss cheese. Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, soft support blurb: Too frequently heretofore unknown rules are used to lobby for or against a blurb. Was Walters top-tier influential and transformative in her field? Yes. Should a death be blurbed only if the death itself and/or funeral be worthy of an article? No. Would blurbing the death of this journalist require blurbing every the deaths of every veteran newsreader from around the world? No. She was the dean of television journalism (but without the heft of a Cronkite) and a media touchstone. Dr Fell (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I and a number of other editors state the rule every single time a bad nomination for an RD blurb is made. Users who pretend not to hear us are engaging in Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which is a kind of disruptive editing. Abductive (reasoning) 05:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this rule documented?—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your argument is the one you state above ("Blurbs should only be considered when there could be a separate article on the death and/or funeral of the person"), you far overstate your hand, considering I do also recall Jean-Luc Godard passing pretty easily a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that not all users agree with the rule. Still, it would be nice if users would stop nominating ~80% of RD blurbs beginning in the new year. Make it a resolution to stop stinking up this page in your efforts to stink up the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that not all users agree with the rule.: So it is not documented, correct? —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now let the wikilawyering begin. Abductive (reasoning) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You;re the one asserting the existence of a rule no-one has heard of. Decrying requests that you produce is as 'wikilawyering' is tendentious. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wikilawyering. Your assertion that this is the only standard by which death blurbs are posted is outright false per WP:ITNRD. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. If you disagree, point us to it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, Oppose blurb Same reason as Westwood. IMO, doesn’t meet global/public renown standard. We can’t just blurb people because they’re the “among the best in their field;” hypothetically, would we really blurb a little-known ornithologist or a museum curator upon their passing, just because they were recognized as such? The Kip (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Old Woman Dies, suggest Photo RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb Vague descriptors that this person was "legendary" and that she "broke barriers", was "top tier influential" or "transformative", are just vague descriptors. The same low-effort vague labels could be equally applied to many TV presenters. Chrisclear (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - Walters is close in my view, but as I comprehend the standards currently in place on this page, and compare the unanimous support for Pele, I oppose a blurb for the main page in this case. I must add that I hope 2023 will bring more kindness in our rhetoric here. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - Pele was well-known to people who have little-to no knowledge or interest in football. Not the case here. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb A transformative figure, and household name at a similar level to Pele who was just posted as blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please tell me this one is trolling, at least. Trying to claim Walters has the same international renown and impact as Pelé is going to hurt your argument more than anything. Kingsif (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An absolutely ridiculous comparison. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were about international renown and impact, sure, that's stupid. But there's nothing weird about Barbara Walters being the bigger name in househoulds where she was on TV for most days of the week for years and Pelé only showed up now and then in archival footage. It's all relative, fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The !vote did try to claim comparable renown, though. Which it shouldn't, you're right, and what I was trying to point out: a support based on comparing the global icon status of Pelé and Walters basically legitimises using such a comparison as an argument, when each item should be considered on its own merits. And surely the overwhelming majority of people comparing the two in such a way will deduce that Walters doesn't measure up. Like, she belonged to a much more niche field, and may have led in an even more niche part of it. They shouldn't be compared, really, because of the difference in scope… Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb I think it’s highly disrespectful for Vivienne Westwood and utterly humiliating for Pelé to put them in the same basket as a mere newsreader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not supporting a blurb, but any honest assessment of her career will show that Barbara Walters was not a "mere newsreader." - Fuzheado | Talk 10:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know. That was a deliberate belittling for the sake of the comparison to Pelé and Westwood because some people really got very unreal in the discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Calm everyone down. Just because Pelé has been included does not mean that the rest of the very famous/important people have to be included. The international impact of Walters is very low unlike him (and that also matters) and not because she is a transformer in the American television she has to be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Very notable journalist but unfortunately her demise comes between that of Pele and Pope Benedict XVI, who are (let’s face it) more notable than her. Vida0007 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb A notable journalist within the US but barely known in the rest of the world. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Not notable enough for blurb; certainly enough for RD. Compusolus (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose blurb Major politicians, generals or religious figures are notable because of the large numbers of victims/people under their control/influence, researchers/scientists and to a degree artists can be evaluated based on new inventions/discoveries/concepts/techniques that they developed, sportspeople can be evaluated on new innovations or vast statistical superiority. There is no evidence of any technical/stylistic advance that the subject contributed to, and if so, it should be explained in their article. Meeting a lot of famous people is not a sign of superiority or improved skill Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, and basically writes off professional broadcasting as an area of expertise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the admins give this statement as much respect as it gives to journalism as a whole. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not significant internationally and with Pelé and Pope Benedict XVI being so much more notable, better to not fill up the ITN section with deaths. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, doesn't meet the globally transformative bar. Oppose RD on quality currently, there are large unsourced parts of the article in the sections "Interviews", "The View" and "Awards and Nominations". Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb She is known throughout North America (well, more United States) as a household name but I don't think she had enough of a worldwide impact that she would need a blurb. An RD would be suitable. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 13:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't let the name fool you, most Canadians have lived near enough an American Broadcasting Company transmitter for their entire analog lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, tentatively support blurb - While I (as a Brit) was not familiar with her work, the BBC's article on her life alone makes it clear that she was both transformative within her area of work and widely respected by a broad range of people. (We do risk having four death blurbs at once, but we live with multiple Nobel Prize blurbs, and so on, so I'm sure we will do fine here too.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Television news some 45, 50 years ago, was incredibly important and this woman in television news was absolutely transformative,[2] but I'll defer on the international issue, although it's hard not to note such changes in the roles of women has transformed broad swaths of world society in the last 50-some years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Not important enough for blurb. Tradedia^talk 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and blurb not a run of the mill journalist. Bruxton (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Blurbed deaths should be held to a very high standard that precludes all but the most prominent figures globally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Blurbed deaths need to be extremely notable, and she just does not have the level of fame to be on RD. Plus, this reeks of US-centrism. 65.246.72.70 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and blurb - Anecdotal but I'm not American and I was well aware of her and her work, especially from her creating "The View" not to mention her prior newscasting/interview work before that. Amazing career.SitcomyFan (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and blurb Her interviews have often being cited as sources, including right here on wikipedia, such as in the Tank Man article for her interview with the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. Interviewed every US president from Nixon onward, and I believe she interviewed Fidel Castro more than any other western journalist, are just two of her many accomplishments that has/will see her referenced/cited in countless biographies of the many historical people she interviewed. In addition to her record as a trailblazer for women in TV journalism. And yes, even as a Canadian, I think America is culturally significant enough internationally that even if she lacks the same kind of fame elsewhere, her important status in a culture behemoth like America is enough. Pele has a blurb, and he was merely someone highly regard in his field; Whereas Barbara Walters was highly regarded AND a groundbreaking figure. 38.18.130.229 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously Support RD. I am willing to support the blurb due to her being a transformative figure in broadcasting, but I'm not sure if she's popular enough internationally. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update This is mostly ready, but for that damned list of Emmy nominations. None of the sources I've found are usable, IMDb and other sites on the blacklist. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Copied over refs from the articles on the ceremonies, hope they're suitable. Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! We should be ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Leaving open to allow further discussion on the blurb, though at this stage it does look unlikely to gain consensus. Anarchyte (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Stats It is interesting to look back at 2022, the RDs which were blurbed and those that weren't. Looking for systemic bias, we find that there were two women but zero Americans. (Thích Nhất Hạnh; Lata Mangeshkar; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi; Shane Warne; Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan; José Eduardo dos Santos; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ayman al-Zawahiri; Elizabeth II; Jean-Luc Godard; Jiang Zemin; Pelé; Pope Benedict XVI)

Our readership takes a different view as Barbara Walters is currently beating both Pelé and Pope Benedict (views). See how they compare with the other RD blurbs of 2022 (22M total). For comparison, here are 10 celebrity deaths which didn't get blurbs (52M total). Queen Elizabeth is best done separately because she's in a class of her own (44M total).

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The article is in pretty good shape, but there are still a couple of citations needed here and there. SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle One CN tag that needs fixing by the looks of things. Part of me wants to blurb it because of her impact on fashion but that might just be a British bias coming from me. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is ready, and I already fixed the lone cn tag. Wish that this could be blurbed but Pelé deserves it more (this situation is somewhat comparable to Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett's deaths in June 2009). Vida0007 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't necessarily have to have an image of Westwood if this was on ITN (although I do think there have been instances where there have been two images so completely fine) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Notable individual, but not to the level of import that usually merits a blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per DarkSide. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, leaning oppose on blurb. I'm not sure the level of dominance of her field is there. BD2412 T 22:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb It must be a super high bar for a death blurb, such as Pele, who even non-sports fans are familiar with. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb per above. - Indefensible (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Unlike Pele, this isn’t someone who was the GOAT. 12.68.17.162 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, weakly support blurb - Let's not under-estimate her influence. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, whilst she may not be as influential Pele, I don't think we should be ruling out a blurb because "this isn't someone who was the GOAT". Westwood did wonders in her field & the world of fashion for bringing punk and new wave styles into the mainstream, so should definitely be considered at least. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, Oppose blurb as per above. MyriadSims (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, weakly support blurb — Sadko (words are wind) 23:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both very influential in her field Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb: Blurbs are not merited on comparative recent deaths (where we should not post one because we have another already) nor on intagible GOAT labels. Dame Vivienne Westwood is definitely on the top of her field here, having designed punk fashion as we know it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both Per above. But I preferred RD a little bit more. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb It is posted on RD now but I decided to take back my support on blurb. In 2022 article, there's an importance tag repeatedly putted on, which is a cause of concern. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the most influential figures in her field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both I would have to say that Westwood is quite influential in her field, I would lean more towards RD but a blurb would not be unwarranted. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. In my opinion, she is influential and well-known enough (to even individual outside of the fashion industry) to warrant a blurb. The decision on who gets a blurb or not though is not particularly well-defined and I wish there was more done to clear things up regarding that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support RD; she isn't really notable enough outside of the fashion industry specifically to merit a blurb, imo. AryKun (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb per above. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support RD. As mentioned above, she isn't really notable outside the fashion world. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some comments on page quality, esp. the couple of "citation needed" tags outstanding, are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've sorted the CN tags with decent sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD, Oppose Blurb Tommie345 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb slightly too fashion-centric for blurb, but definitely RD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Looks ready to go, quality-wise. No to a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Posted to RD. The quality seems OK per consensus above, but there's no consensus for a blurb right now. It seems unlikely one will develop, but you never know I suppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - It's not necessary for someone to be notable outside of their realm of expertise to be blurbable. They just need to be a sui generis transformative figure in their field. It's unfortunate that the larger-than-life legendary Pele would happen to pass around this time, as this would create an observer bias that only someone who is as famous as Pele deserves to be blurb, and that's not so at all.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It needs to be more than "They just need to be a sui generis transformative figure in their field" because there are tons of "fields" which are ignored. Which are important enough to qualify? It's entirely subjective. - Indefensible (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is entirely subjective. That's how ITN works. See also WP:ITNRD under the blurb criteria for "Major figures". 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Usually blurbed deaths have to be at a certain level of global/public renown so as to make them extremely commonly known; I don’t feel that Westwood reaches that standard. The Kip (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb per Walt. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb In the field of fashion designers, Westwood strikes me as both widely recognised and highly transformative. If Westwood doesn't fill the criteria for a blurb, then truly who in her field would? Humbledaisy (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Blurbed deaths should be held to a very high standard, limited to people that are internationally household names. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do they though? My feeling was they need to be transformative, top-level figures in their field - Westwood was. I can think of several figures blurbed in recent times who are nothing internationally. Humbledaisy (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of those cases were errors of products of an era where our standards for death blurbs were lower. It's fair to say Westwood was transformative in her field, but not every field's advancements are of the same level of note. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb I can understand posting it for a recent death, but I don't think she is world famous enough like Pelé, so a blurb shouldn't be posted about her in my opinon. TomMasterReal (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support blurb At the dawn of punk, the dawn of new wave music and fashion, made a Dame; of course she's worth a blurb. Her inspiration goes from 60s to today. A worthy event. Ofdoktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb: Transformative and influential, with a lasting impact. And free from the RD/death blurb bias toward athletes and trivial 'Google Doodle' type figures. Dr Fell (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Famous and influential. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we blurbed everyone who was famous and influential there would be a recent death blurb up virtually all the time. There has to be a higher standard than that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think she goes beyond that. She was one of the most influential designers of the late 20th century, with a unique relationship between fashion and popular culture in the punk movement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At this point, even though it looks like we have a weak consensus for a blurb, I'm not sure an admin would be willing to run three death blurbs on the Main Page at the same time. It might look a bit confusing when juxtaposed with the Recent Deaths line.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there, though? To me this discussion seems to be in no consensus territory. I marked it for needing attention, however.65.246.72.70 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know the “votes ≠ consensus” guideline, but by my count we have 32 total votes and the yes/no to a blurb is an even 16/16. I wouldn’t even say there’s a weak consensus; we’re pretty firmly in no consensus. The Kip (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, fine, no consensus. Whatever. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per others; don't oppose based on things happening too fast anymore than you would support a blurb based on things happening too slow. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Per above. Punk rock is one of many genres that had a strong international reach and her contributions in this field is enough that the punk rock would look different if not for her. Inclusion of Pele and Pope Benedict should not matter. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. I posted this to RD and left it open for blurb discussion, but will now cast a vote on that and on reflection I don't think she rises to the level of transformative influence that would merit a blurb. There are numerous artists of similar standing and we can't blurb all of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

So, Nepal, Fiji, and Israel have all swapped in new prime ministers within the past few days, meaning that half of ITN will be lines on these new figures being elected. I propose smushing them into a single line:

After elections, Pushpa Kamal Dahal becomes Prime Minister of Nepal, Sitiveni Rabuka becomes Prime Minister of Fiji, and Benjamin Netanyahu returns as Prime Minister of Israel.

No image needed, as Pelé will occupy that box anyway. BD2412 T 20:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this isnt how we do things at ITN. Each item gets its own line. that's how it's always been. Noah^Talk 21:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji will get pushed off once Bibi gets posted, so its not a big deal in this case, I think. I can see this solution being useful if circumstances were different, though. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Per Curbon7, once Netenyahu's blurb is posted, Fiji will fall off. However, in the future, this could be a useful technique. --2601:249:8E00:420:3194:A2F9:8A7D:7629 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh This is going to self correct in the near future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this time, and for the future such thing should be proposed at a relevant talk page I guess, to be discussed and !voted on by the community. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 04:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per #Suggesting updates, it seems more suitable here than at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, striked. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As another editor has stated, each item should get its own line. I'm highly sceptical that this proposal would be put forward if it the blurbs in question related to the heads of government in wealthier countries and/or countries with higher populations, such as the US or the UK. Chrisclear (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with this as well. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not dispute that at all, but the fact that these are relatively small countries (Nepal, population 30 million, Israel, population 10 million, Fiji, population 1 million) diminishes the significance of having separate lines for each. BD2412 T 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN/R is pretty clear - one country, one blurb. I'd definitely suggest taking up your argument at WT:ITN if you want to initiate something like this in the future. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Absolutely not. The new PMs are ITN/R, that means they get automatic blurbs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nepal, Fiji, and Israel are about as alike as George Bush, broccoli and a cloud-scudded sunset on the Bosphorus Sea. A merger is not appropriate, certainly not without a change in our guidelines. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no one provided reason as to why 3 PM blurbs is bad per se.--75.105.36.46 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Expect debate about blurb, RD should be fairly quick with the editing activity at the article. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb obviously. Added to nom nableezy - 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Forward, footballer, 'greatest ever' by Fifa. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BLURB. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - beaten to the nom, keep getting edit conflicts. Article is GA class so shouldn't be any issues. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My only concern is there isn't a dedicated section about his health. If the article is attracting readers because of his passing, it maybe needs to be mentioned more than just the date. But as said, the article is busy, I expect it will come soon. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is now. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious support blurb -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD & Blurb the article in good shape (and being heavily edited) RIP Josey Wales ^Parley 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - No-brainer. Article is GA and Pelé was one of the greatest and most influential athletes in history.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both RD, and blurb if someone writes one. On quality, the article is a GA. On significance, he's considered one of the greatest soccer players of all time. Note my use of "soccer" instead of "football" - I'm an American who has very little interest in any sport, let alone soccer, and he's one of the few palyers I've heard of. If I've heard of him, he should meet the significance bar of being a major figure, transformative in his field. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the greatest athletes of all time. The Kip (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Article is GA and is being updated atm. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Probably the most influential and well-known player of the last century, even more so than Diego Maradona who also had a blurb iirc. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb No brainer. Article in good shape. --2601:249:8E00:420:7D41:8C6B:2BFE:2201 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - If I've heard of an athlete, you know they're famous. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Regarding article quality, the article looks fine. Regarding the blurb: ITN has in the past chosen to blurb people who are the "greatest ever" in their field (as that is a fair interpretation of the "major figure" clause). In some cases, there may be multiple people who have a legitimate claim to being the "greatest ever". Pelé is one of those rare soccer players who has a legitimate claim to being "the greatest ever". That term may be thrown around loosely in some fields, but it is not puffery here: FIFA itself called Pelé "the greatest of them all". Pelé's death will be a top headline story for the rest of the week, and blurbing his death will meet ITN's mission to help readers find stories that are in the news that readers will be looking for. Therefore, we should blurb this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• think its ready to post with photo. nableezy - 19:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Looks good to go. RIP to the legend. Vida0007 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. A no-brainer for a true legend of the beautiful game. Article is in good enough shape but can be improved further. SounderBruce 19:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as has been stated above. rawmustard (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as per all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted blurb. Spencer^T•C 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Post posting support blurb, support publishing first blurb, where was mentioned about his 3 World Cup wins. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support. But I think the appropriate blurb is the first "Alternative blurb", also with photo. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, photo should be definitely changed, as usual. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Photo was changed. Got undone by accident. Have restored. -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support of the current blurb It's Pelé, no need for the blurb to describe so much. We would have to keep the format that was used when Maradona passed away. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting blurb support. Clearly entailed as a legend/top of field in the article. This is a no brainer for blurbing. Masem (t) 20:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: I am not sure it is ITN worthy, but interesting fact. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 1. Not sure about the ITN/R label. This is not mentioned at WP:ITN/R#Celestial events.

2. Not sure the proposed target is suitable. That article is about the solar system and it'll probably contain a maximum of 1-2 sentences on this event (haven't checked it though), which is not enough to meet WP:ITNCRIT. For this type of event, a separate article is best, but I don't know if this meets the notability criteria.

3. The event sure is interesting, and I'll be happy to support this nomination, albeit with a better blurb, if the above issues are resolved.

Regards, The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 1. This is not mentioned in the target article. 2. This is not exactly a rare occurrence. From The Guardian "The last time all of the planets were visible in the sky simultaneously was in June." According to Space.com "Such "grand tours" happen roughly every one to two years, on average." ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name of BBC article is "All solar system's planets visible in night sky". The lead says "There will be a chance to see all the planets in the solar system in the night sky on Thursday." Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what I meant by "this is not mentioned in the target article" is that it is not mentioned in Wikipedia's article on the solar system. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This is a picturesque occurrence, but a routine one. 'It's interesting' is not, on its own, a reason to put this on the front page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Unnecessary, things like this happen once every few years, and doesn't feel worthy of putting on the front page. TomMasterReal (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:ROUTINE, fun-facty "and finally..." stuff you see at the end of daily news broadcasts, rather than legitimate news, especially given its commonality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: In global news around the world every day for a while now. Very tense, global politics at play, underlying historical grievances, ethnic-based divisions in a fragile part of Europe. The article is very good though and updated. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Major ongoing political dispute. Well-written article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Convinced by Andrew. This is not the most severe conflict of its category at this moment. Myanmar and Ethiopia in particular are better examples of recent escalations of civil conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with Thebiguglyalien. --Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but link simply as North Kosovo crisis; I know WP:CRYSTAL, but I don’t see the conflict resolving itself in the next three days. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. We usually avoid years when posting onto ongoing, so it's clear that North Kosovo crisis is what should go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seems insignificant compared to the numerous list of ongoing armed conflicts. That includes six major wars with tens of thousands of deaths. The Kosovo spat doesn't even make the list as a skirmish. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I have to agree with Andrew here; we can't possibly include every dispute/crisis/war into ongoing. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless something substantially changes on the ground. The tensions have been simmering for years, there's a risk it will never go off Ongoing if posted there. Yakikaki (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ongoing Consider a blurb if there's a particular escalation of events, but not every ongoing conflict can fit in Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As someone who wrote this article, I'm against posting it in ongoing. At the time of posting this nomination, barricades were still up and Vučić did not yet announce their removal. It is in the news, but the crisis, as of now, is de-escalating and only a few have been wounded and arrested during the entire period. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If Kosovo and Serbia go to war, then that will obviously make it to ongoing, but that looks far from the case. It is a usual tension flare-up, but as stated above, seems to be resolving itself and is not major at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose not least because a BBC article this evening suggests that it's about to come to an end. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Not a major event. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are many conflicts that are more important and that are not part of ongoing. Tradedia^talk 15:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a war, just tensions. You could say that for many nations right now. TomMasterReal (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Mass shootings are uncommon in the UK, and this is being covered by all the main news sources in the UK. greyzxq ^talk 15:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, mass shootings are rare in the UK, but I'm not sure if the death of one person merits a blurb here. The ⬡ Bestagon ^[t] [c]  15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Agreed with The Bestagon. Like it or not, you will likely find that just one death is a difficult cup for ITN to drink from. For similar comparisons, the Paris shooting nomination immediately above this one is contentious with three people being killed.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Random crimes happen every day all over the world. I don't think this even meets WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose far from ITNR-notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Shootings are rare here, but not so rare that every shooting needs to be blurbed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose domestic crime that does not yet appeared to have any serious motivation like terrorism or hate crime. That might change if they capture the suspect but on its own, its a type of "everyday crime" not suited for ITN much less WP. --Masem (t) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose that's not for what ITN is for. That death does not seem to have a major and lasting impact on society.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]