Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2018

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted): Magnitogorsk building collapse

 * Support Many deaths, a bit short but well referenced article. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ray Sawyer

 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support Very short actually. But it appears no more issues after that. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short; insufficient coverage of the subject to merit posting to RD at this time.  Spencer T• C 16:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kader Khan

 * oppose. Referencing is a bit hit and miss with filmography and awards sections not referenced at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - As with most of Indian film personalities, awards and filmography are not referenced. Can we move this to a new page? - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster and Sherenk1. Based on your suggestions I have forked out the filmography article and did some major work in improving the references in the article. Please take a relook. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With 180,000 page views already as on 31 Dec, I feel this is a strong contender for promotion. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)regards


 * Weak support Referencing seems adequate and meets minimum standards, but Kader_Khan seems mostly like a list written in prose. I'd be more interested in more meat about Khan's career.  Spencer T• C 03:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer, appreciate the kind feedback. I will see if more can be done to improve the meat. Yes, IMHO, the conditions of WP:In_the_news are met. lets keep the stricter conditions for the GA review. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been fixed at a good enough level for posting. Good work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Great work! User:DBigXray Sherenk1 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Most of this article is referenced by The Nation ref dated June 10, 2016 that is a copyvio of this mostly unreferenced June 7, 2016 version of the Kader Khan article. - 58.27.134.35 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now removed all instances of "the Nation" and replaced it with better sources, also added a Template:Backwards copy on the talk page. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article has been improved a lot since the nomination and now looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Bangladeshi general election

 * Comment I have added an altblurb and marked this as ITNR --DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb. given claims of problems. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest the Bangladesh Awami League. Sca (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb as suggester. Added "the" per Sca. Marked as ready. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose update for the results, no refs for "Coalitions and alliances", conduct section focuses on violence and vote rigging -- how many ballots cast, how long were polls open, etc? Not MP ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: shortened & fixed the altblurb. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Removed ready. Article needs to have a prose update for the results.  Spencer T• C 16:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support National elections are definitely important enough to be included. The article is not complete, but has most relevant information. Jose Mathew (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor Timerman

 * Support Looks OK to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lawrence Roberts

 * Support It looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support has been updated, quality meets rd requirements, good to go --DannyS712 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Mrinal Sen

 * Oppose - Not slight. several sections needs sources. Ping me when done.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very popular Indian director from Bengali film industry. Sherenk1 has done some work to improve the article already. If the filmography section is a concern that is blocking the promotion of this ITN, then it is better to WP:CFORK the filmography to another article as is the norm with Indian Cinema BIOs. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing issues are a bigger concern than CFORK at this point.  Spencer T• C 16:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) TPP comes into effect for six countries

 * Strong support Great news for all forward-thinking people of our planet! Openlydialectic (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Underwhelming. Sca (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's like the European Trade Union, right? The foundation of that would have surely been ITN if Wikipedia were around then, just because Australasia gets seen as less significant than America and Europe doesn't mean it is. Kingsif (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wombat (PSF).png
 * Certainly not – if you happen to be a wombat.
 * Happy New Year! – Sca (talk)


 * This seems a bit weak, but ITN has been slow lately, and it can be posted at the exact moment it comes into effect. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming into effect is rather an expected natural consequence, the proper moment for posting was its ratification by 50% of the signatories. Brandmeistertalk  08:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice news. Needed.BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  – Coverage on major Eng.-lang. news sites appears to have been skimpy or absent. Sca (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think coverage in English language is a requirement, as it is not a requirement anywhere else in en.wiki. (if the material was potentially contentious, we'd need to make sure the English translation was solid, no Google translate, but that's a different issue) --M asem (t) 14:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * How can we label it "In the News" if it's not in the news media that most readers of English-language Wikipedia are exposed to?
 * In the case of major natural disasters, wars, etc. in non-English-speaking countries, such events usually are widely reported in Eng.-lang. media, so there's no problem with posting them on ITN. If events aren't significant enough to make Eng.-lang. media, they're unlikely to be of wide significance.
 * English has long since become the international language – for which the 1.2 billion of us who speak it as a first or second language can only be grateful.
 * Anyway, this particular event directly affects three English-speaking countries – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – so its absence from Eng.-lang. media raises doubts as to significance, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason is our (ITN's) approach to when to post stories like the onset of trade pacts, posting when the pact happens rather than when it is ratified. (same with business mergers, etc.) The ratification is usually the more newsworthy event, the actual onset a footnote. Certainly, via google news, around March 8, 2018, when the TTP was signed, it was well-covered by English sources (BBC, Bloomberg, etc.) That's a situation we put ourselves in for wanting to avoid CRYSTALBALL events. On that basis, we should look to make sure that events like ratification were well-covered, and still post even if the actual passing wasn't. --M asem (t) 15:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can pretty much buy that, although I'm a little nervous about retroactive significance, so to speak. It's just that I don't remember seeing much coverage of the TPP signing – but maybe that's my septuagenarian memory in (in)action. Sca (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support As noted above, ITN has been a bit slow and this seems like a good candidate to freshen up our corner of the main page. Article quality is decent with better than average referencing for a change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – You guys talked me into it. Sca (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per quality and notability. I have marked this as ready, given the current lack of opposition --DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support given article quality and the fact that it is topical in a number of countries including English speaking nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It would be topical in the US if President Trump had not withdrawn. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks okay to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Aldo Parisot

 * Support - Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple unreferenced paragraphs and awards. Stephen 01:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as RD) RD: June Whitfield

 * Oppose. Over 120 items in "Film and television" but not a single source (although many are blue links, of course). Support posting in principle, given her stature in UK comedy, but not prepared to try and source all of those single-handed, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC) (thanks to a recent spate of vandalism, the article is now protected for three days, so now even the IP nominator can't improve)
 * Support. Thanks to the hard work of MurielMary and PaleCloudedWhite. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And also, who added more refs than me (though we did get our wires crossed a little). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The article needs citations, but I'd even support a blurb for her since she pioneered and opened up comedy for women way back when - as every obituary is focusing on, even more than her Miss Marple and being knighted. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A blurb would not be unreasonable. A 63-year career. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now as per, too little sourcing on the film and television career. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You now have a referenced filmography section, except for works since 2000, which are all blue links and presumably somewhat easier for other editors to find (and 50 years "only" took me 2 hours, anyway) Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Over 60 year career, and a heap of reliable sources saying she is what made comedy a viable career for women. Definitely hits the threshold for having a big impact in ones field. Kingsif (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I don't really think this meets blurb standards. Notable, but obscure outside of the UK, and hardly young. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article is well referenced. Not sufficiently notable for a blurb as she mainly appeared in supporting roles. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the two series that were her own entirely, and that whilst largely supporting roles, she's been in practically every single comedy the UK has produced. Kingsif (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD based on quality and notability, no comment yes re blurb until one is suggested --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Appearances from 2000 on in filmography are uncited still. These need to have sources before the article is MP ready. MurielMary (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support now referencing is largely complete. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready nearly 6 hours ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose We're still missing about ~15% of the role credits, otherwise support. Oppose blurb, just not that high a level of significance here (long career != significance). --M asem (t) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not long career so much as the first woman to be a lead comedy actress, appearing in over 100 (mostly comedic) roles a year since the early 50s. That's a world changing impact in her field, undoubtedly. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So not ready after all. Have unmarked. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support +blurb/ as pioneering comedian of international reputation. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing now complete. MurielMary (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD. Whether she merits a blurb can continue (but I will still argue that just having numerous roles or being the first of something like this is not necessarily equating to a leadership in the field). --M asem (t) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * RD Only - an RD listing makes sense, and does the job aptly. Does not rise to the level of industry leadership needed for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georges Loinger

 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted No outstanding issues. --M asem (t) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Weisner

 * Support definitely meets RD requirements --DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. Fully referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment About a half-dozen CNs floating around. Not ready. --M asem (t) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready now IMHO.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not thrilled that to avoid trying to fill CNs, about 6k of content was removed. I agree some of it was a bit puffery, but removal of it all didn't seem appropriate just because sourcing the few CNs may be hard. --M asem (t) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never shy away from hard work like that. The decision was justified. See here. There was some serious POV battle on this article. I thought the best option was to return the article to a condition similar to when it pass GA review. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that, fair enough reason, though obviously I'd hope someone woudl review what was removed later and try to source and correct in line with policy. --M asem (t) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted --M asem (t) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Nationwide 9-1-1 outage

 * Oppose Network outages like CenturyLink are routine. 911 bring down in some areas may have impact but unless some severe crisis occurs due to it lack, that itself is not significant. --M asem (t) 17:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel this lacks the significance required for a global project. AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no update. Story is significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on impact/significance per others. Spengouli (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As a result of this glitch, I had no internet service Thursday, and was reduced to reading books and even cleaning the house. Though tragic, I don't think my experience qualifies for ITN. Sca (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amos Oz

 * More references are needed, I see some unreferenced paragraphs and the works and awards need to be sourced as well. --Tone 15:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Referencing of text OK although there is room for improvement. Works and awards partly referenced. I would suggest remaining part of section needs to either be referenced or removed pending the availability of references from reliable sources.Weak oppose at this stage. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we work on it together? He certainly deserves being mentioned, but couldn't do it alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I commented out all awards without ref (for now), leaving an impressive list of those sourced, and gave the publications a ref. I'll never understand why we and the readers don't just go to authority control for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I used two refs more. There are many details about his early year unreferenced, but he wrote about it himself, - it seems not contentious.?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Added more refs. Added myself to updater. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Added Coffeeandcrumbs to updaters who found more refs --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and Yoninah --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment All the sentences are referenced. All the awards too. What is missing?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --SirEdimon (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Good to go now. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything looks good now. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good now. Death of Israel's foremost author in last decades. Noon (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Good work with the references. --Tone 08:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Meghalaya mining accident

 * The updates to the article are too thin for ongoing. I suggest renominating when they are rescued. --Tone 15:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If I want to remove this from ITN for the time being, do I just delete this entire section? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Børge Ring

 * Support on quality, meets RD requirements ( Disclosure:I am reviewing this article for DYK ) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted I note that the short list of films can be sourced in the body, but ideally those sources should be duplicated. Also the list should avoid ELs (but the ELs can be located elsewhere). --M asem (t) 14:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Richard Arvin Overton

 *  Support  Article is short but adequate and decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking my support pending addition of refs for military awards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support G2G --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Military awards need sourcing. --M asem (t) 04:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This has not yet been addressed, and at this point, this is technically stale. --M asem (t) 14:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per 's argument here only 6 days ago. w umbolo   ^^^  21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see the relevance. This guy was not the last known survivor of anything as far as I can tell, he was just real old. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing how my oppose rational provides an argument for a blurb. This man is not the last World War II veteran. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have commented out the image used at the top of the article due to some vandalism. I couldn't track down what caused it, but if you look at the old revisions of the article the image is clearly damaged, despite working fine on the page of the image itself. Pinging in the hopes that one of you knows how to fix this / fully protect it / idk but it should be fixed. See the relevant old version at  (warning - very graphic NSFW) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: restoring the image size to 175px appears to fix this. I don't know why, but suggest that it be protected while on the main page to ensure that this isn't removed --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DannyS712, I apologize but I am dealing with a real world situation right now and am about to log off, probably for the night. I suggest you take this to WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless fully protected or the image situation is figured out --DannyS712 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC) nvm we figured it out, so now support RD based on quality --DannyS712 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing: United States federal government shutdown of December 2018

 * Oppose Purely petty political matter due to funding the the wall. --M asem (t) 17:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No chance of this getting posted. Internal political bickering and certainly by no means a true crisis. WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Aside from the already mentioned reasons, it is only a small portion of the government that is shut down(I think 25%). Most of it is still funded. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news, article is ok, a number of government offices (such as CBP) are running through the shutdown but technically the staff aren't getting paid. I think a blurb is better than ongoing, but that's my $0.02. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The updates are not sufficient for ongoing and it seems we will not get a consensus for a blurb. --Tone 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a true shutdown until January 3, 2019, after the holidays when the new Congress is seated. A true shutdown is surely ITN-worthy because as many as half a million people will be out of a job. Wait till Jan 3 and I would support. Right now it is nothing more than an extended holiday for non-essential employees.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "not a true shutdown"; several government departments are unfunded and closed as a result at this time. It is true that many employees take time off for the holidays and so the actual effect is minimal until their expected time off is over- but Twitter is already filled with stories from federal employees unable to pay their bills because they are not working. This is a "true shutdown". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support This is most definitely in the news. There are updates from various news sources from all ends of the political spectrum every morning and every evening. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whenever and if this goes live it should include the word 'partial', as 'partial government shutdown'. Per accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the above support votes have merit, and I don't really think "purely political" is a reason. p  b  p
 * Support this saw and continues to see wide news coverage. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What incremental updates will there be? "The goverment has been closed X days", then "Y days" and so on? No negotiations are occurring or are expected to occur until Pelosi is Speaker. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is on Thursday. A blurb is more appropriate than ongoing for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet no one has proposed a blurb. And really, what blurb is there to propose? Parts of the government are temporarily not being funded due to political disagreements, which will all end once a budget resolution is passed. Not news.--WaltCip (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) this is a routine US political disagreement (2) The "shutdown" isn't really a true government "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal. Chrisclear (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Antarctica solo crossing
Support The article is well enough. One might argue that it's not a THAT important feat, but given the usual late-december news drought I say we should give it a chance. I mean, the most recent item is already 5 days old. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment Update would look better with more details (means of crossing, weather conditions, etc). Brandmeistertalk  12:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly seem notable, but absence of detail makes me wary. Assuming this was a straight line...how far did he travel? "Unaided" ...he was carry 54+ days of food the whole way? Have others even tried this? ghost 15:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he dragged a sled behind him with food and a parabolic mirror or a magnifying glass and bowl to warm snow enough to drink. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Henry Worsley (explorer) died attempting this back in 2016.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability (I came to add this myself when I saw it was already here). I'm okay with the current blurb, but agree that it could be improved. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Too much unsourced info, even outside this specific achievement. --M asem (t) 00:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, ITN-worthy news but the article is nowhere near ready for MP. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting tidbit: he is Eileen Brady's son. His last name is a combination of his father's last name O'Connor and his mother's last name.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb does not seem to be accurate, per Børge Ousland's 1996 accomplishment. Am I missing something? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 17:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ousland used a kite but O'Brady's crossing was claimed as "unaided". Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the claim is disputed. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - on notability.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sono Osato

 * Support fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 11:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Penny Cook

 * Support, referenced well for RD. JennyOz (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A little short, though well sourced. With all obits coming out, can the article see a little expansion such as a personal life section? But good work on the article! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Article has been expanded. MurielMary (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fine for RD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done to all who improved article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Great work people.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sigi Schmid

 * Support. I'm a huge MLS and football fan and I'm really sad to hear that. Schmid was very important for the league. The article is in good shape except for his later coaching career.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good shape. Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 08:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sister Wendy

 * Oppose Sadly it is lacking sufficient references, including the entire Publications section. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All books now sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ok now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Not many hermit consecrated virgins who have 40 books to their name. International art historian superstar. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please source the TV section and then it's good to go. --Tone 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work! Posting. --Tone 22:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Theodore Antoniou

 * Oppose for now well short of adequate referencing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)}}

(Closed) RD: Syed Ali Raza Abidi

 * Oppose Stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sulagitti Narasamma

 * All fine here, posting. --Tone 09:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi

 * Support Good for Recent deaths section. GTVM92 (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Notable death. He was a highly senior official. -- M h hossein   talk 11:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good for Recent deaths section.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still seeing some gaps in references. --Tone 08:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Martha Erika Alonso

 * Rafael Moreno Valle Rosas also died in the crash — he had previously been the governor of Puebla and was serving his second term in the Senate. Raymie (t • c) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, why not expanding 2018 Puebla helicopter crash, write a blurb and mention both politicians in it? © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 02:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if both are unbolded, as they were not high political figures (like a president). The key event here is the crash. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added a blurb (which I support upon the expansion of the articles), feel free to re-word it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support either both biographies listed on RD, or the blurb above. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb as individuals neither comes anywhere close to a blurb, as an air "disaster" the article is short and uninformative. Rafael Moreno Valle Rosas is basically a stub, not MP ready. Martha Erika Alonso Hidalgo is barely adequate with almost no detail. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We've posted some pretty light disaster articles before, this looks good enough. I think the fact there there are two high-ranking officials, both sitting, gets this over the hump. ghost 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose RD - Oppose Blurb The two bio articles are borderline in their quality and need expansion. This incident does not warrant a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb a tragedy, but it does not merit a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb similar situation to 2018 Leicester helicopter crash, minor crash with notable people killed. That had RD and not blurb, and that it appropriate here too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting Martha Erika Alonso Hidalgo to RD, the other article is currently too short. --Tone 08:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's ask the question if a helicopter accident killing all 5 people aboard would get a blurb or not. I think we would (referring back to the helicopter accident a few years back that involved 3 athletes), so the blurb should be the accident, noting the two notable people aboard killed. Altblurb given to support the crash as the blurb focus--M asem (t) 23:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Kloka Hackett

 * Support updated, meets RD requirements, ready to go --DannyS712 (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Simcha Rotem

 * Support RD, oppose blurb Article is in a great shape, but unfortunately I don't think he passes the Mandela criterion. But what do I know? Let's see what others think. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb The length of the article is very indicitive that this person doesn't pass the significance bar to even start talking about a blurb. RD is fine and article is ready for it. --M asem (t) 15:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD only. No need for a blurb here. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for now. Referencing needs work. Also oppose blurb on merits. If this were the last veteran of World War II or the last survivor of the Holocaust I'd likely support. But this individual's notability does not rise to a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Ad Orientem. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, oppose RD for now'. Not blurb material.  Would support RD but article is lacking in references at present - Dumelow (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Talal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * Support meets requirements for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article, decently referenced. The Ancestry section needs a cite but that is not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 22:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Sunda Strait tsunami

 * Support An unusual mass casualty event with some connections to a major historical event that probably should be at least mentioned in the article. The article is short but adequate and decently referenced. I would expect expansion as more details emerge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape for the preliminary stages of this event --M asem (t) 02:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait if we're "not a news ticker" then there is no reason to express yet another barely above stub disaster article to the main page. -LaserLegs (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's clearly enough details and assessment of deaths to know this will be posted once a minimum article quality is reached. If there was an incident but no word of any deaths or injuries, that would be the point to wait. --M asem (t) 03:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I commented, the article quality has improved. Still a run-of-the-mill disaster article. Since WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a redlink, I tend to ignore death toll unless it is staggering which this clearly is not. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is a major natural disaster this month. It would be unwise to throw it under the bus.Shadychiri (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative Blurb provided, as the eruption is still a "likely cause" guess. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article is pretty OK at this stage for overview of the disaster with this level of casualty. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is good enough for the main page. I don't mind which blurb is used. Spiderone  10:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough shape to post now, and still being updated --DannyS712 (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb as per the eruption is the suspected cause but not confirmed, so alt blurb is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt-blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reword? Post-posting support, and the poster quite rightly rejected 'caused by', but our blurb would be more interesting and informative to our readers if it said 'A tsunami that followed an eruption of Anak Krakatoa ...'. Alternatives include 'connected with' and 'related to' (but 'that followed' or 'following' is in the article's currently cited sources). (Incidentally, last time I heard, the BBC was suggesting the tsunami was probably caused by an underwater landslide caused by the same underground forces that caused the eruption, rather than being caused by the eruption itself). As the omission is not an error it should presumably be discussed here rather than at WP:ERRORS. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paddy Ashdown

 * Support RD not flawless (and probably worth waiting an hour for the high-volume editing to die down) but nothing significant that will prevent posting this. Certainly not blurb-worthy, but just prominent enough someone might suggest one. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments about a blurb. He was a prominent figure in British politics for decades, so it's not unreasonable to ask the question but I think the answer is no as he never held high office and wasn't otherwise a major international figure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD death been up dated (I was one of the edit conflicts), and article good enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait for moreBig personality but still breaking so we need more confirmation and details. Andrew D. (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The national honours section needs cited, the styles of address is bare (though I don't know if its needed? Don't care, personally - it's understood). Otherwise, clean as a whistle, sharp as a thistle, no sticks, no gristle. ghost 20:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Overall article quality is actually quite decent. Referencing is not perfect, but it is far better than what I typically see for prominent RD nominations. There are a few gaps, but not enough to block posting. (The honours section does need some work though.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Enough confirmation, good enough article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - with his life touching so many significant areas - militarily, politically, diplomacy - I cannot disagree that his passing should be posted. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak support blurb as long as the blurb focuses on his role as the High Representative for Bosnia; a lot of news coverage of his death focuses heavily on the post-Yugoslav Wars reconstruction of Bosnia that he, among others, had a large hand in. Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD no comment re blurb until one is suggested, but definitely meets RD criteria --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thee's two CNs on statement that do not seem obvious/non-contentious. This doesn't as significant as for a blurb, but clearly RD once these CNs are filled. --M asem  (t) 05:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've cited or removed all the CN-marked statements so I think this is now ready. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eileen Battersby

 * Support fully sourced and referenced. MurielMary (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tom Leonard

 * Weak Support - was working towards a nom myself. Still some problems, particularly with one passage which is poorly referenced, but nearly good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I hate to say it but WP:OR is a problem. It is good original reasearch but original nonetheless.--- Coffee  and crumbs  15:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove: Yellow vest movement

 * Support Removal no significant updates to justify keeping the event in ongoing TheTerribleToess   bug me on my talk page!  04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Removal Rise in similar tagged events in Belgium, and Taiwan warrants the maintenance of the status quo. Shadychiri (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support Removal The trickling here and there news will take a long time to stop. The substantial story, however, has slowed down to extent Ongoing is no longer warranted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that you support removal, but you wrote "oppose". 331dot (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. I fixed it. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Just about to come here to propose this myself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Removal What are you guys and girls talking about? It's clearly still ongoing. Just look at the main page of France24 https://www.france24.com/en/ Openlydialectic (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal The "Ongoing" ticker are meant for events that have, on average, daily major updates. While no question the protests are still ongoing, the news-making is more of a dull roar with a few periodic updates here and there, making it fail the "ongoing" ticker requirement. --M asem (t) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * there clearly are daily (hourly) updates to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_vests_movement&action=history Openlydialectic (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I pointed out in my nom, the updates are mostly content tweaks and ref fixes. I'm doubtful that protesters in Pakistan or Taiwan are protesting fuel prices in France. This may still be happening, but it's no longer "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about updates on the WP article, but how the news in general is updating the situation. And there only seems to be a few blips of changed information day to day while non-violent protests continue. --M asem (t) 21:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Both of these statements is just self-evidently not true: Yellow vests movement But thanks for making me see this nomination is purely political. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seven days between significant events do not qualify a topic for on-going. --M asem (t) 22:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal. If it flares up again or there are other significant events it can get a new blurb, but for now it's died down below front-page level. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I offer the following paragraph from the "In The News" guidance article for people considering this removal suggestion: "An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb." doktorb wordsdeeds 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's high time Ribbet32 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support still in the news, but not enough to remain as ongoing --DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Spencer T• C 17:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: F. W. Bernstein

 * Oppose at present due to insufficient coverage. The article describes well where he worked and a list of things he published, but there should be a narrative summary of what his work entailed: major themes of his work, what did he satirize, what kind of poetry did he write, etc.  Spencer T• C 08:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Understand, but I have no time to do that for days to come, - anybody else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Moffat

 * Oppose Needs a lot of work, like citations in the body, a referenced filmography, and a lead that summarizes his key roles. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved since took a look. Still needs a couple more sentences in the lead but I am not certain which parts of his career to highlight.---  Coffee  and crumbs  19:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, much improved. Can we get those last unsourced items sourced? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are good to go now.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I struck one entry from the filmography but cited the rest. Looks fine now. ghost 12:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Audrey Geisel

 * As far as I can see, Audrey warrants three sentences in the article, which we’d never post if it were a standalone stub. Stephen 22:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This is simple, Masem. She does not have an article currently and writing one seems unlikely. If indeed there are "long-form obits" and reports about here life then start an article for her. My "long-form obits" in scare quotes does not mean to diss the orbits nor her life, I really never know her whatsoever, but it means to show if they cannot be used to build an article, then they're lacking in something contrary to how you're suggesting they're. The way RD works is fine, one should really have an article to be considered, and we do post a lot of articles which are barely stubs. RD is a privilege not a right. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) US President Trump orders the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria

 * Oppose Trump had long indicated he wanted to remove troops there since April at least, this is not a surprising development. Further, the media is jumping on this as sensationalist news - its very similar to how the UK press was attacking PM May over the Brexit stuff over the last week. --M asem (t) 05:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the impression one gets from reading what the article lead says about 2018, backed by cited sources, but of course if we want to dismiss all our Reliable Sources as Fake News, then we can presumably post or not post anything we like (especially in relation to Trump who has been saying lots of things on lots of subjects for years; on that basis, for instance, we wouldn't post a US withdrawal from NATO as it would 'not be a surprising development' given what Trump has said in the past). Indeed on that basis we could almost never post the end of any country's involvement in any war, since there will almost always have been some indication beforehand that the possibility was being considered. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently it seems Trump is still mulling the withdrawal, but hasn't issued the relevant order as the commander-in-chief. The Dept. of Defense website hasn't announced the withdrawal either, although it has a link to its Twitter account saying "We have started the process of returning U.S. troops home from #Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". Brandmeistertalk  09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, do you have a reliable source for 'still mulling over'? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is my reading of news sources - despite the headlines, the situation is unclear. The Dept. of State site currently doesn't mention the withdrawing either. Perhaps wait a bit longer to let the dust settle. Brandmeistertalk  11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this source, after the tweet and the White House announcement, State Department cancelled a scheduled press briefing. That in itself is quite notable already. Wakari07 (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not that the RS are fake news here, but that with Trump as controversial a president as he is, the news sources cover every action he does in such a critical manner moreso than any president prior, and that creates sensationalist news, making such events seem like the end of the world or the like with how much they cover it. We have to be aware of this media subject inflation in evaluating ITN stories. --M asem (t) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The news source here is the Pentagon, not Twitter. It's Putin here who is happy, not Ivanka. Wakari07 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The news sources we use to judge whether something is ITN is the mainstream media that are repeated what the Pentagon, the White House, and others involved have said and added their own spin atop it. That's the sensationalism part at play. --M asem (t) 17:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this is seeing more than enough coverage to support. Plus, even if it's not surprising, if this had been nominated in April it would undoubtedly not have been posted because it "hasn't happened yet". Also, there're articles like this saying there'll be wide implications.. Banedon (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not particularly credible. Changes orders like the wind blows.  And Department of Defense and officials contradicted him.  That a partial withdrawal may have started is no guarantee that the political rhetoric will become fact.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is a meticulously referenced monument to proseline. example. It's certainly in the news, but concerns above about Trumps erratic behavior are also valid. A presidential twit is not the same as moving troops. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A manufactured story. As with most other things that Trump has done, this is merely to distract from the recent news regarding the dissolution of the Trump Foundation as well as other legal issues he's facing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - A major shift in foreign policy, confirmed by the White House and the Pentagon  and making headlines , eliciting notable reactions in the U.S.   and around the world     . Wakari07 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – A case of declaring victory and getting out. Timing seems political, shocking though that may seem to some. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now we'll have to wait and see if he actually withdraws troops, or if the US just withdraws some regular troops, while retaining advisors, spec ops, private military contractors and all the other rabble they brought with them. As of right now, I don't believe for a second the US is actually going to remove their illegal occupation of the country, the hawks are far too strong in Washington (as evidenced by the media meltdown in general). Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article quality well below par. It is basically a monthly timeline of military actions. May I suggest Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria similar to Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump swinging around military isn't really news, article still needs work. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the actual withdrawal. There is only one way to verify Trump's promise: wait for the withdrawal and post this then. I suspect a bit that this will be canceled and that Trump will rant again on Twitter about "Animal Assad" and blame Obama. w umbolo   ^^^  21:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Slater

 * Support It looks OK to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a couple of cite tags for some statements that are somewhat contentious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the statements because I couldn't find reliable sources to cite them. Otherwise the article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I've added another reference from The Guardian's obituary. Seems good to go now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Penny Marshall

 * Oppose. Filmography completely unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I just added a Variety article as a source for a number of entries in the filmography (though most of the specific character and episode names are not sourced in that article, so the section may need further cleanup). Funcrunch (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Try &  ghost 13:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. A number of paragraphs (particularly in the "career" section) are unsourced - Dumelow (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The entire filmography section remains unsourced. I tagged it, but the tag was removed by someone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several paragraphs that lack inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – Significant and well-known director, actress, and member of the LA/Hollywood community. News of her death has been widely covered, and conspicuous by its absence here. Article looks to be mostly well-cited (this isn't an FA/GA nomination, right?). —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a GA/FA nomination, but I see at least one completely unsourced paragraph, and WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that reason to omit it from the RD list? Is there a guideline about the criteria in this regard? If the unsourced 'graph (in Career?) is the problem, should it be removed so the article can be listed? —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support added citations. MurielMary (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Influential director and actress. Article appears to be fully cited now.The lorax (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fully cited now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Stephen has put orange tags on the sections of her work. Haven't we discussed this before - if a film etc is a blue link, there's no need to provide a citation as well?? MurielMary (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've put orange tags on because they require references, and there is a stream of people here stating that it's fully referenced. This has been discussed endlessly in the past.  References need to be in the primary article, and a reader shouldn't need to click through to verify a claim. And many of the blue links are for series articles that do not specify individual episode casts and verify them.  And many of the listed media are not blue links.  Whether we need a list of every minor appearance in an encyclopaedic article is another matter. Stephen 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen for the reply. I remembered the endless discussions but not the outcome! Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * References added to filmography, needs review by another editor now. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Filmography. Awards section is not supported by the citation given; most of those can be deleted as niche, though. ghost 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing is much improved. I believe it's ready for prime time. † dismas †|(talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Never heard the word impossible. CoatCheck (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Roache

 * Support - nominator is right. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support meets RD requirements. I have marked this as ready. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Miss Universe 2018

 * Oppose due to lack of a prose update about the actual pageant and it needs a tense update. Support the good faith of this nom, and I could get behind a more comprehensive article. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting subjective "beauty" pageants, as I did last year when this was not posted. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN isn't ITN without the news of Miss Universe. Period. STSC (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. After the quick close last year, this one has no rationale, and looks like a disruptive nomination. Please do not nominate next year without good reason. w umbolo   ^^^  13:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: several editors below use the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". I did not use any of them in my comment, and they are irrelevant here (disruptive ≠ bad faith). w umbolo   ^^^  14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that this nomination is disruptive; that suggests some sort of nefarious motive in making the nomination on the part of the nominator(at least to me). I guess we will just have to disagree about that, but I hope that a well meaning editor was not driven off with your statements that they were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that this nomination is anything other than in good faith. If you have evidence of bad faith or intent to disrupt, please offer it or withdraw the comment.  Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominating an insignificant event every year, without remotely reflecting on the fact that the past year's nomination failed, is disruptive. w umbolo   ^^^  13:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, the user is checking to see if consensus has changed. That's not bad faith or disruptive. We don't have a "never nominate" list.  331dot (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this appears to be a good-faith nomination. There is no moratorium on nominating events that previously failed to gain consensus, though of course they usually meet the same outcome. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) From the policy you cited: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. The nominator raised zero previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Since the nominator did not attempt to contest the previous consensus, it should not be changed. w umbolo   ^^^  14:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A year ago is not recent enough to be disruptive. A day, a week, or even a few months, maybe, but not a year.  I strongly disagree with your characterization of this nomination even as knowing (and agreeing with the fact that) it will likely fail. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What previous consensus? As far as I know, the article titled Miss Universe 2018 has not yet been brought up for discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless we're going to start recapping The Voice, too. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Miss Universe has been a notable event since 1926, possibly before you were born. STSC (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So? Age is not in the ITN criteria. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're confusing "existing" with "being notable." I'd agree that people once cared about Miss America, but that time passed decades ago. This one is even less notable. ghost 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. My view hasn't changed since last year: no beauty pageants are sufficiently important (in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest) to merit an ITN blurb. No rationale was presented in the nomination, so there's really no reason to change my opinion. Besides, the article is little more than a bunch of tables and a description of the venue. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your rationale of "not sufficiently important in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest" would apply to Hockey World Cup, such a minority sport. STSC (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Snow close Beauty pageants do not meet the ITN threshold.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though I agree with 331dot that this was not a disruptive nomination. Consensus can easily change within a year on ITN. Still, it seems a bit passe to be highlighting beauty pageants in 2018, especially since they're not in the news anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In general, the "recognition" of beauty pagaents has dramatically declined in the last few decades. Also,I'm thinking that with these types of annual/biannual/etc. events which are not currently in ITNR, that ITNR should be sought first as it doesn't make sense to ITNC a one-off event. (I agree this should not be taken as a disruptive nomination, just better to have had it start at ITNR first). --M asem (t) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ‘’‘Oppose''' not notable enough to be included --DannyS712 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with proper modification to the article to include the fact that this is the first time that a transgender female has competed in the Miss Universe competition. In my opinion, that makes it different than any other year that this contest has been held and worthy of ITN. Striker force Talk 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That would make it a decent DYK item. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose literally of no encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support With blurb on first transgender contestant, a massive step for Miss Universe. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. K. Wetherell

 * Support - Good faith support of posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the career section isn't supported by much in the given reference.Stephen 00:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephen. I have taken a look and think I got them all - Dumelow (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(Needs attention) 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis

 * Comment – Seems sorta like musical chairs. Sca (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with Sca, and feel that a blurb can be posted when the crisis is over and someone is charge with a level of stability. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support important development in the crisis. The blurb can be updated if things change again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Ed. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Ed.BabbaQ (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ranil Wickremesinghe is orange tagged for refs can't post a BLP vio to the MP bold or otherwise. This story is also way far down in the headlines. We posted this when it started, then it sat in Ongoing for a while ... is the return to the status quo really that "significant" given that the Prime Minister has no real power? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Domestic politics just isn't that ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose given that this was already posted, this step is not incrementally important enough for a new post. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Return to ongoing. The situation has had several recent developments, reflected in the fact that 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis is getting plenty of updates. I'm not convinced this step necessarily justifies a blurb on top of the previous posting, but I do think we should put 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis back in ongoing for at least a few days. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written, as the article on Ranil Wickremesinghe is ineligible to be the focus article of the blurb. Would probably support a rewritten blurb more explicitly directing readers to the 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis which is in much better shape.  I would also support ongoing for that article too.  It appears this is still receiving regular updates, so highlighting through ongoing is appropriate.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose either return to Ongoing (for how long?) or wait until something significant takes place. This isn't it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality) but agree with Jayron that the target should probably be 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (presumably with some consequent blurb modifications). All the evidence currently suggests that the crisis is resolved at least for the time being, with the successful reestablishment of proper constitutional norms and the proper constitutional government, and the apparent acceptance of this by the (at least temporarily beaten) Rajapaksa. Of course future events may eventually change that, but that's seemingly WP:Crystal (so there seems no justification for Ongoing either). This is not simply ordinary domestic politics, it is the apparent defeat of something close to a coup d'etat (roughly comparable to the Queen in the UK deciding on her own to appoint Boris Johnson PM and order a General election contrary to the will of Parliament, with both then caving in to a Supreme Court ruling), and would almost certainly be posted if it occurred in a Western democracy. Something like that did actually happen in 1970s Australia when Gough Whitlam was ousted by the Queen's representative John Kerr; there was no Wikipedia at the time, but we have recently posted a far more trivial story about the parliamentary elegibility of a few Australian MPs. (Incidentally, both Australia and Si Lanka's population are of similar size, so it might seem a bit racist to try to argue that Australia is far more important than Sri Lanka). Failure to post on grounds of alleged insufficient notability would thus look like a bad case of WP:BIAS. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The constitutional crisis seems to have concluded (per WaPo), now that the constitutional PM is back in power. 39.57.217.25 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Him being back to power is non news, it just resets to the status quo before the crisis. We already posted the news, when it was news. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurb and ongoing. The news is now domestic and of little interest to wider audience. There was crisis and resignations (and that was news and we posted it then) and now no crisis and normalcy restored (and that is non news) per my reply just above this. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: How a crisis ends is at least as much news as how it starts. Indeed it's also more encyclopedic and more informative to the reader who gets to learn far more than at the start, including more about the background (which is what ITN is supposed to supply better than other sources) because we have had more time to write it up (and this extra time also tends to allow us to show better quality articles to our readers, which is another of the stated purposes of ITN). Or perhaps for consistency we shouldn't be reporting the end of wars either, on the basis that peace is normal and therefore the outbreak of peace is not news. Incidentally the main resignation (Rajapaksa's) came at the end of this crisis, not at the start. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, but this ignores the fact that we already had this posted (for a long time). Items eventually fall off or are removed, but that doesn't imply that the thing is over. Events will continue to unfold, some of which may warrant posting themselves. But we cannot imbue them with the significance of the event that already was posted, or ITN would be overwhelmed with the daily skirmishes in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, etc. ghost 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if this were just another event in an ongoing crisis. But the facts and the sources indicate that this is the end of this crisis (although it hasn't helped that this was not clear at the time of the nom, resulting in lots of early opposes, etc). Of course the crisis will inevitably have some ongoing effects in the subsequent 'normal politics' phase, but not posting on those grounds would be like not posting the end of a war because it will inevitably have some ongoing effects in the subsequent 'normal peace' phase. Similarly not posting the end of the crisis because we already posted its start is like not posting the end of a war because we already posted its start. (And it would also be like not posting Malcolm Fraser's election win because we had already posted Gough Whitlam's dismissal if Wikipedia existed in the 1970s, except that ITN/R would make that impossible). But a much better argument for not posting (and indeed for closing) relates to the (in my view rather regretable) increasingly apparent unlikelihood of a new consensus to post emerging here before the story goes completely stale. This suggests that some thought may be wanted about what, if anything, can be done to try to avoid this kind of problem in future, tho this is presumably the wrong forum for any such discussion. YTlhslobus (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Ghost, TRM. Getting stale, suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have updated the blurb (Alternative blurb II) to reflect some of the issues against the quality of the Ranil Wickremesinghe article. This is domestic politics of Sri Lanka, concerning the status of democracy in the country and the avoidance of returning to authoritarianism under Mahinda Rajapaksa, which is one of the most important political issues in the country, but the outcomes of this crisis has effects that resonate through to the whole of South Asia and Asia region, such as allying with India and the West in favour of rule of law and democracy or with China and authoritarianism, to put it simply. The Supreme Court decisions also proved to be landmark rulings in the country, going against the powerful executive branch and showing the independence of the judiciary, independence that was severely curtained under the Presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa. To put it bluntly this whole crisis is another way Rajapaksa is trying to seek and stay in power, after being barred from the presidency, while he is backed by China, who is using him for there Belt and Road Initiative through Debt-trap diplomacy.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and support ongoing - not stale: on 19 December, the Prime Minister appointed his new cabinet and now the race is on to approve a budget before the end of the year. The anticonstitutional coup failed, and that's a major geopolitical event, but "continued acrimony between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe means the crisis is far from over". We can work on the blurb and the articles as the situation continues to evolve. Wakari07 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II The crisis ended on December 16, making this the most current news item on ITN. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Supreme Court handed down ruling on 13 December. So, still not stale if we go by that date. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final

 * Support on notability, oppose on quality  I'm a little surprised that this isn't ITN/R, given that the highest levels of a number of far smaller sports (both in terms of participation and viewership) are represented there. But, yes, it needs a prose breakdown of the final at least. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until its conclusion. We don't post matches/games in progress. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concluded now, blurb fixed. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lacking prose update. Tables and lists are no substitute. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support prose is overrated. In articles like this what matters is 1) who won 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Prose is existential to an encyclopedia. Without it, you have an almanac. Which is a fine thing, just not the thing we're doing here. ghost 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Match is completed and results are announced a day earlier. See 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.61.53 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once more prose has been added. This appears to be the top event in a noteworthy sport. The blurb should also be edited to include the "In field hockey" opening that we normally use for sports items.--<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but oppose on quality. Neither 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup nor 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final has a prose description of the game/tournament. Nevertheless this is the top trophy in a reasonably prominent sport; I'm surprised it's not on ITNR (was it ever discussed?). I've tweaked the blurb slightly - we never include the year and 'hockey' on its own is ambiguous. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final has a decent prose summary, so the alt blurb is good to go. Marking ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a decent prose summary of the final exists. After that, happy to support, and would consider ITNR per previous comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Final article has been updated with a match summary. Dee  03  04:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb, neutral on the article on the final and altblurb for now. The article on the main tournament has no prose update, just an unreferenced table of results.  The article on the final is slightly better but I question the quality of writing: if tightened up (which it badly needs) how much is actually there?  The opening half sentence "The 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final was a field hockey match to determine the winner of the 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup..." is almost a textbook example of redundancy with the sole apparent aim of shoe-horning it as many links of questionable value as possible.  Similarly the prose in the Route to the Final section essentially replicates the the earlier diagram instead of expanding upon it in matters of substance.  The prose on the final itself is not significantly better.  The match started promisingly.  For whom?  One of the teams?  The viewer?  We don't know so that adds nothing. 3142 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb. The finals article is main page ready, with sufficient prose.  The tournament article is not.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Colin Kroll

 * Oppose Stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is a bit too short. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Koltai

 * Posted Stephen 23:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukraine Independent Orthodox Church

 * Comment unlike before, there's an article at 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism with great depth (though it needs copy-editing). For those who have been watching this, the Tomos of Autocephaly won't be granted until January 6 .  I'm not up to date as to whether this is relevant to post; Putin or Patriarch Kirill will almost certainly make news in the next few days if it's a critical enough step. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The UK and Russia have now responded; very differently. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did the UK respond and how does it concern the UK? Wakari07 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I support pending blurb changes . Apparently most of the bishops chose to remain in the Russian Orthodox Church (which is still the largest in the country) instead of switching to this new shady organization. Something tells me this has to be at least mentioned in the blurb. Also, the Ukrainians didn't really become independent. Those who switched, they chose to be under the Ecumential patriarchate of Constantinopole, instead of the Russian patriarchate located in Moscow 193.34.160.162 (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, the article should be renamed. Autocephaly by definition is "the status of a hierarchical Christian Church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop". This church is headed by a metropolitan bishop, not a patriarch, and that bishop reports to Constantinopole. The article therefore should be renamed to "Ukrainian Metropolitan Church" as it is not autocephalous. --193.34.160.162 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * TASS says the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to what TASS calls the Ukrainian Church (a disambiguation page with 10 redirects and 4 see alsos). Someone must be in contradiction with themselves here. I guess we're lucky that Ukrainian Metropolitan Church is still a redlink. Wakari07 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Read the article Autocephaly before you comment on the issue again. It's not a question of belief or self-profession, autocephaly is a thoroughly defined state in eastern orthodoxy, meaning that the church is fully independent from other orthodox churches and its head has the same status as others. This church is neither of these things, it's officialy subordinated to Constantinople, it's head is a metropolitan, who has a far lower status than a patriarch (think dukes vs kings), and it doesn't even call itself that way (both Constantinopole and these schismatics call themselves "The Ukrainian Orthodox church". And your post strikes me as a prime example of someone who has no idea what he's talking about, but who still tries to talk about issues he has no experise in as if he was not stupid. Goodbye. --193.34.160.162 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I learned something that I can now safely ignore. Thanks for that. Wakari07 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – As before, wider significance seems doubtful. Sca (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this be withdrawn until both the autocephaly is granted in January, and a user with some expertise has expanded the articles? Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a unique event --AlexKozur (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the religion has hundreds of millions of followers, making this a major event. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a huge deal for the Russia-Ukraine relations, and for the Eastern Orthodox Church more broadly. A blurb as proposed is OK, but we might also consider making this an "ongoing" item instead of or in addition to the blurb. There will certainly be important subsequent events. Now that the Unification Council created a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is likely that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople will proceed with the official recognition of and autocephaly for this Church. Other Eastern Orthodox churches are being pressed to take sides. Many of them have called for convening a pan-Orthodox Synod or synaxis, and it may in fact happen. If, as seems likely, the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church attempts to take over some of the properties currently under the jurisdiction of ROC in Ukraine, there will certainly be a strong reaction from Russia, and further escalation of the crisis is possible. Etc. So the current schism crisis is far from over, and maybe making an "ongoing" item for a while is reasonable under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A split and the formation of a new church is rare and has historic implications regardless of what you think of it. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Ad Orientem has seemingly been the nearest we've had to an expert on this crisis, and he has not spoken yet. If and when he does speak, I expect to be following his lead unless he comes up with something very strange (I'm expecting he will either support now or suggest waiting until the Tomos is granted, which is currently expected to be on January 6, or perhaps he will suggest ongoing). I certainly think the crisis deserves to appear on ITN, but the question is when. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This rearrangement of churches does seem to be a major development in one of the world's largest religions (Orthodox Christianity), with some geopolitical aspects too. I support posting the story at some stage, but lack the expertise to know whether this is the right moment to do so. As with previous nominations, I struggle to understand 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism; in part that's my own ignorance, but it also seems to be poorly written and frequently ungrammatical. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is covered in orange-level tags, whilst the article on Epifaniy is mostly proseline and says he's head of Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which may or may not be a different church... <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Orthodox Church of Ukraine is the newly-created unified church, and the article that should be linked in any blurb. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is just the preliminary administrative stuff. The tomos is expected to be delivered on January 6 (Christmas eve). That is when the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP) is going to declare the creation of a new exarchate under their jurisdiction that will be separate from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The term "autocephalous" is controversial since the new entity is not going to be an independent national church. It is going to be entirely under the jurisdiction of the EP. At the moment nobody in the Orthodox Church outside of the EP is recognizing this new entity. I would wait until the tomos is issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Pulwama encounter

 * Weak support Pretty big story in the region, but the article is currently in a stubby state. Have my full support if significantly expanded. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * Weak oppose without some indication of why this has broader implications, it seems quite regional. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: am I right in thinking border skirmishes are frequent in (disputed) Kashmir? For example, I found 2018 Sunjuwan attack and 2018 Shopian firing incident, both of which had civilian casualties. Is there a reason to see the Pulwama event as more significant than the others that happened just this year, let alone in the history of the Kashmir conflict? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub with no clear indication of broader significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilhelm Genazino

 * Support - Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough. --SirEdimon (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 200 words of text about a complex career, seems thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) AFF Championship

 * Comment It's a very regional tournament. I think it's not notable enough for ITN.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose we usually require some kind of prose update, and the target article doesn't have it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a top-level tournament, and by far the strongest team eligible to enter didn't even do so. To give an idea of the level here, the winners Vietnam are ranked #100 in the world. Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as above. Very much not a top-level tournament, surpassed in reputation, following, and calibre of play by the AFC Cup and Asian Games. Lacking the significance needed to post in ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stormy and Black Kite, not particularly big feat. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Balangiga bells
Copying this over from below, since many comments said wait till December 15, and it's happened. Keeping nominator as is, although I am supporting. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who cares? Some minor event in a third world country is definitively not important enough for the ITN 193.34.160.162 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * George c scott as scrooge.jpg


 * Bah, humbug? – Sca (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Important event with tie-ins to historically significant incidents supported by a quality article. This is exactly the type of news one would expect to find on ITN. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
 * There was a rough consensus below to post this if the references are fixed, which I believe has happened. Happy to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Not seeing this "in the news", and I'm unconvinced that an essay published at the Wisconsin VFW site qualifies as a WP:RS (and I'm fairly certain that a web archive of a geocities site that had "reproduced" an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer fails WP:RS) -- but this isn't a hill I'm going to die on either. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Found a working Google Newspaper archive of the said Philippine Daily Inquirer article. Can't really do much about the so-called reliability of a website from Veterans from Foreign Wars, though... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Historic and important event. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – An interesting story and for once a positive one. (In the news biz such things are known as "brights.") – Sca (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, after second-checking the references, there are no references from 15 December, all updates from media are a couple of days old. I'd like to see this improved before posting. --Tone 18:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC story, though brief, is today's. Sca (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support really well written article. In depth, comprehensive, well written.  This is the kind of quality writing we should be filling the front page with.  In terms of quality, this is easily the best article that has been nominated here for months.  Great stuff.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated with the events of December 15th. If anyone has an issue with this article, do a filibuster and tag it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, STSC revered my sps tags around the VFW essay (which is the foundation for most of the first half of the article) and like I said, not a hill I plan to die on. None of it is a BLP issue so ... whatever ... post this "very significant" return of some church bells. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll further clarify this in the article talk page. STSC (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment would be a decent shout but the blurbs are all too wordy. If it's such a "big deal" why all the verbiage?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, the preceding debate   and the formal announcement of the decision to return the bells on 14 November   made headlines too. It's a "nice culmination" to hear that they're actually restituted now. Wakari07 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it's clear this is in Elgin Marbles territory. Doesn't seem to be properly ITN, maybe "ITIN in a sub-class".   The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the nmarbles returned? Lol. Wakari07 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. The marbles can be returned one day, once. Just like this. Rowing though, it goes on until the ice caps melt. Love the fact though that the champion of US centrism brings out a British example. The same person who said US midterm elections are not notable, and have shoved the almighty Boat Race (Title Caps!) down our throats year after year suggested any returns such as this should be Elgin marbles territory. Unbelievable. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - long-running diplomatic issue between the Philippines and the US finally resolved. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support - It's ITN-worthy news that marks the end of the saga for 117 years. Even today(Sunday 16 Dec) there're plenty of news about the bells. STSC (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sondra Locke

 * Comment. This is a strange situation, possibly stale, since she died back on Nov. 3 but the public was apparently not notified until today. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The relavent section of the guideline says that The event is current, and not stale relative to other events. Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box. Recent Deaths are considered separate from standard blurbs for this purpose. For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources. This will often be the same day as the event itself, but sometimes it can be some time later, such as would be the reporting of scientific discoveries, in which the work has been done months in the past, but results are published in a reliable source some months later. (bolding added) so I think this would be okay. I haven't look at the article yet, so no comment about supporting or opposing. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Not stale. Article in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready. Death revealed later, so not stale.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Filmography remains unreferenced. Stephen 23:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - I referenced the Filmography now.BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Bitcoin bomb threats

 * Oppose While I know there were some evacuations and the like, the threats were not taken seriously at the end of the day. --M asem (t) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and we probably shouldn't even have an article on it. This kind of thing happens all the time—someone was sentenced for another case just last week in the UK. &#8209; Iridescent 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This sounds like a copycat prank (see 2017 Jewish Community Center bomb threats), with "Bitcoin" to make it look interesting. Wakari07 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

George Pell

 * Support - Was nominated in 2017, and speedily-closed on the grounds that we wait for convictions. That has now occurred, the article is in good shape in relation to referencing, and the significance (highest-ranking church official to be convicted, as stated by the nominator), in my view merits posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question didn't we just post an Australian Catholic convicted or driven out of power or somesuch over sexual assault? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we didn’t post Philip Wilson, and coincidentally his conviction has just been quashed on appeal. Stephen 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I forgot the name. previous discussion if anyone cares. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Good shape article. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Legally no Australian editor can add information to the article, and the conviction cannot be viewed on the main page in Australia, so as not to predujice the second trial in March. But this is the internet. Stephen 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia are not a legal document. So you are wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Wikipedia are not a legal document”? What are you trying to say? Stephen 22:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess Australia is smart enough not to block Wikipedia nor burden it with lawyer costs. Wakari07 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope so. Would be a lot of $3 contributions. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Notable issue, the article looks good. Wakari07 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Questions on wording: isn't "convicted on charges of..." better English? Also, is it an option to write "reportedly convicted..."? Wakari07 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment scrolling through headlines I don't see any mention of it, and the only reason this sexual predator is significant is because he's a high ranking leader of a popular private club. It's a long article, and before posting this to the MP it should be scrutinized for BLP issues and bad refs. I won't be doing that because I don't care about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Section "Diocesan episcopal career" is bad enough that I orange tagged it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support when the referencing issue of the "Diocesan episcopal career" section is fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did what I could and got rid of the tag. Wakari07 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are unsourced paragraphs, and several statements beyond those that need sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better target article could be found, such as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Australia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be, though I don't know that that one is updated with this. It's a large article and I may have missed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'll take a look later.  Pell is in there, it's well referenced, it might need a sentence or two update, but then it's good to go I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I will be offline for a while though, so someone else can follow through on that if I'm not on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nancy Wilson

 * Oppose - On quality right now. Ping me if fixed by involved parties.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) VSS Unity

 * Weak support The ambiguity in the "space border" is between NASA/USAFs 50 miles and the FAI's 62 miles, but as the Verge article above points out, the FAI may be reconsidering this. For all purposes, this is a critical point, with the next major milestone I would expect to see at ITN is when it makes its first passenger-carrying flight, which is several years down the road. --M asem (t) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As the comment and Masem say, there are few realistic "milestones" in civilian spaceflight, and this is certainly one of them (to put it in other words, a plane went to space). Quite significant. Kingsif (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Looks more like a marketing stunt of limited significance in a time when space tourism is only accessible to the few. Brandmeistertalk  21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this the first of it's class to do this? I think we need some kind of superlative here to qualify as ITN. ghost 21:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, first of the SpaceShipTwo class to achieve this (the previous vehicle VSS Enterprise achieved 22km max altitude before it was lost in a crash) - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - a milestone. article seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Seems a rather arbitrary "milestone," of scant general significance. Sca (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Didn't even make it to space. Come back when they exceed 100 km, preferably with paying passengers on board. For the avoidance of doubt, none of these events qualify for ITNR as Virgin Galactic does not plan orbital flights, only suborbital. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose could be a nomiation for the other place, but in news terms, arbitrary, I'll wait for the first paying flight, successful or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, also per Modern Genius’ rationale. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Newsom

 * Weak support And father of Gavin. It's the bare minimum I can support based on its small size. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * support - just barely over stub status but ready for posting. sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's brief, but what's there is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient coverage of the subject to meet minimum standards IMO. There's a single sentence covering his 20-year career as a judge, and in general there's more details about his friends in the article and what his father/sister did compared to his legal career. Would be willing to support with a quality paragraph or two about his judicial career.  Spencer T• C 15:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Spencer, thanks for the feedback. I have added some further information from the obituaries relating to his judicial career and personal life.  Would you mind taking another look? - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noah Klieger

 * Support there's a dn in there, but otherwise it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the dn tag has been fixed, other than that no issues --DannyS712 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ankara train collision

 * Support - Major event with casulties.--Joseph (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but relatively comprehensive for what is known so far, and well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support but be careful with that image, we usually only use the exact object we're talking about, not "one similar"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If a photograph of the exact loco was available on Commons, it would have been used. As there wasn't, quality of photo was the overriding factor. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but we don't use photos of similar locos/aircraft etc. This one will just have to go with no photo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support this is an utterly insignificant disaster story with a barely above orphaned barely above stub article that is all but guaranteed to be abandoned once this drops out of the headlines (like Kuneru train derailment). It is, however, in the news, so why not. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LL, this is far too sparse an article to overcome the routine nature of the event. ghost 21:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support There is nothing routine about a fatal High-speed rail accident. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * support - eveything is relative, but this is ITN news and should be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * support per Caradhras. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support meets requirements, well referenced, notable, in the news --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Death of Grace Millane

 * Oppose. It's sad, but I don't see how it's out of the ordinary or globally notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is, not only is "globally notable" not a requirement for any ITN nomination, but for WP:ITN/DC the only "notability" requirements are WP:N. There is even a banner about that in the nomination template. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if this qualifies for RD since she doesn't have a standalone article (we did RD for Alfie Evans). If it's a blurb you want, you should change the template type please. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support for a blurb on the grounds that it received decent amount of attention in the media and it happened in the second most peaceful country in the world according to the Global Peace Index rankings as of 2018 (this is not a recent death any more, though).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD - The subject, Grace Millane, appears to have become a stand-alone article. Although one could make the argument that this person is notable only for their death, that rationale to oppose has been rejected on ITN multiple times.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if she is notable, her death was announced on 8 December, so would be stale for RD now. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose both. The individual is certainly only notable for her tragic death, and the tragic death is far below any blurb standards.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Strasbourg Christmas Market shooting

 * Support - article is ready for posting. a number of deaths. international attention. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - More people died in a shooting in Belgium this year and that wasn't posted. WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did it get nominated, was the page good, how intense was the attack coverage? This attack was also two weeks before Christmas at a very famous Christmas market, which adds some weight. More people were killed in a shooting in Brazil on this same day, but the discussion below refers to how it's diminished because of attacks in Brazil being frequent, minimal international coverage, and a stub article. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Liege shooting.--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading that and the article, I'd personally weak support it now, because since the time it has been expanded and is more clearly terrorist-inspired. At the time the article was weak, and it looked like a rampage attack in an isolated area with few implications. The perception is the difference, really - shooting wildly into a famous Christmas market is just more "newsworthy" in public opinion, number of deaths irrelevant. That nom also mentions the Ontario attack, which had no fatalities, but I think it got a lot of support - because of how the Canadians pushed it into the world news and how rare attacks in Canada are. Comparisons need careful consideration of differences as well as similarities. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  this was in the news two days ago when it happened, it's not really anymore. Islamic extremist violence in Europe is becoming almost as common as Christian extremist violence in the USA. The article is pretty good though, I won't erect a wall of text if it's posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on second thought, WTF, why not? Its still sort of in the news, it was when it happened, article is decent. Go for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's a terrorist attack in a part of the world where that sort of thing is not altogether common. The article is an decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You sure they're not altogether that common? See List of terrorist incidents in France. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I would also propose this could be, if not put in ITN, put in Ongoing, due to the attacker still being at large. Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the suspect is captured, we can update the blurb. If they are still at large and the article is getting regular updates when it's about to expire off, it can drop into ongoing. That's been working well for us I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Tweaked blurb to remove purple prose, otherwise this seemed good to go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – The event itself has become, alas, not uncommon in Western and Central Europe, and the toll of victims is comparatively small. On that basis, it doesn't seem quite up to ITN. However, given a manhunt actively involving two countries, it's OK in ITN – though if the perp isn't found soon we might bump it into Ongoing. Sca (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Perhaps time to update the blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.208.216 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. We can't post every shooting with three deaths in ITN. I would not have supported this even when the suspect was at large; now they've been caught I'm even more opposed. No reason to treat this any differently to the shooting in Brazil below. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it's also entirely irrelevant. We don't post items by counting the number of deaths.  We post items based on quality of the article and whether or not it is something people have heard/read about in the news.  There are lots of things where more people have died that we don't have quality articles.  We will continue to not post those.  Also, we will continue to not post things where more people have died where the story has not been covered, in the proper way, by the proper news sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that death toll is not the deciding factor, but it isn't 'entirely irrelevant' either. The best article in the world won't make up for an insignificant event that barely passes GNG. Coverage in the mainstream media is not a proxy for encyclopaedic value, as the tabloid rumour-mill and sports pages demonstrate. A quality update and coverage in the media are both necessary but not sufficient. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the coverage of this story is neither a) in tabloid news or b) in sports pages. What we're using to establish news coverage here is high quality sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose per Modest Genius. This sets the bar unncessarily low for the future.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though there are a lot of news stories still being produced, the manhunt (a notable part) is over, and the article itself is attracting a lot of edits but mostly conflicts over whether to categorise it as Islamist terror or not. Kingsif (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Update – Time to update blurb. Suspect isn't "fleeing" anymore, he's dead. (Article has been updated.)– Two Altblurbs offered above. Sca (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated I freelanced a bit to try to merge the original blurb with the new information. I hope that works.  Neither of the altblurbs was working for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, though with the pic. it looks a bit long. Could be shortened by deleting "and injured a dozen others," which isn't essential. Just a suggestion. Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Xcllnt. But now death toll is up to four. Sca (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently 5 now Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Petrus Iilonga

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Reference 5 is a dead link. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That issue has been resolved. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support While the article is a bit short, it manages to meet our standards. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiwi Tauroa

 * Support what's there is brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - just above Stub-standard but ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Campinas Cathedral shooting

 * Oppose we're not linking to a one sentence stub on the main page, and this random act of violence is no where near significant enough to post without a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not great, but it's hardly a blip when one considers shootings in Brazil (I could link a website which shows such assaults as a daily event), so not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This was not an "assault" or a "gang dispute". A man entered in the cathedral of one of the country's largest cities during a mass and killed the faithful. This is not a case of urban violence. Chronus (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait for more details If this turns out to be some kind of terrorist attack or motivated out of religious hatred I would likely support. But large scale shootings in Brazil are too common otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it was not a dispute between criminal factions or a case of robbery. This type of mass shooting is more common in countries like the United States. Chronus (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait per Ad Orientem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs and The Rambling Man. TheTerribleToess   bug me on my talk page!  00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gun murders are sadly a frequent occurrence in Brazil. There's no reason to single out this one; being in a cathedral does not make it more important than any other shooting. This is barely notable enough to qualify for an article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. According to the BBC, "While gun crime is common in Brazil, shootings of this nature and especially in a place of worship are not." w umbolo   ^^^  13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Might support if it was expanded, but it's still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Legs and TRM. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Wumbolo. Banedon (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This kind of shooting is not even close to be common in Brazil. So, it's pretty much notable, however, the article is still a stub.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Balangiga bells

 * Support - It's ITN-newsworthy that marks the end of a saga for 117 years, and the related articles look fine. STSC (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. I spot checked 4 refs, two are self published (filipinoamericans.net and an essay at http://vfwwy.org), one dead link, one hand made archive. Not good start. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – It is an interesting story, though, and for once a positive one. Sca (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a nice opportunity for a DYK but not an ITN item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting yes, but agree with article quality. "...killing an estimated 48 and wounding 22 of the 78 men of the unit, with only four escaping unhurt" is not very encyclopedic. If four were uninjured and 22 wounded then the "estimated 48" must have been 52. Moriori (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's because 4 American soldiers were missing in action. STSC (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That reinforces my article quality point. If we know four soldiers were MIA we should say so. And get rid of that awful "estimated".Moriori (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Hold the bus, I see someone has added it. Moriori (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The massacre happened in 1901 and is therefore no longer news. What's news is the United States return of the bells that they looted as war booty, sent to Wyoming and South Korea, was petitioned by several Philippine governments for its return, and was sent to Manila yesterday, 117 years after it was taken away. That said...Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait until December 15th when the bells are returned to Balangiga. It being sent to Manila is just another part of this news story. Also, article should be as per ITN standards. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait The bells will be returned to the church on 15 December, which is a few days from now. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment waiting won't fix the refs. Go through and fix them up if you want this to have a chance on the 15th. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any major quality issue with Balangiga Bells. If you spotted any individual ref error, you should have tagged them with inline tags. STSC (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll do it for you. Do you know the inline tag for self-published refs that fail WP:RS? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you hum a few bars, I could fake it. (It's outside the or  inside.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard. I tagged the background sections which have the most questionable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably there'll be coverage of the actual return on Sunday. Sca (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Evelyn Berezin

 * Weak oppose as noted, there are several unreferenced claims there. Most of it is fine though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I added some references and cleaned up all cn tags. My impression is that the article is in sufficiently good shape now, but someone more experienced with RD should take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Voyager 2

 * Support As I was writing my blurb, I did point out that we posted when Voy 1 was confirmed to have crossed the threshold. --M asem (t) 16:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no update to the target article as yet. It currently states: "the spacecraft may instead reach interstellar space sometime in 2019" - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's actually been update elsewhere in the article. That sentence have been removed by Masem now. -- KTC (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just moved a few things around to get the update to the body. The lede was updated. --M asem (t) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Can't support it at this stage as the article is too poor - there are great swathes of unsourced statements - Dumelow (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though I haven't had a chance to check the article quality. I've added an altblurb. Strictly speaking the announcement was made by Edward C. Stone of Caltech; NASA just issued the press releases. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On a quick look, that article seems pretty good, just that pesky orange-tagged Uranus section to address. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I've also added second alt-blurb, which I would prefer. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Large sections of entirely unsourced prose (the "Encounter with Uranus" section has no sources and is orange-tagged as such, "Encounter with Neptune" is mostly unsourced).  Not ready for the Main Page as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was always going to happen, so it's not surprising and therefore not particularly interesting. Banedon (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides which, being second usually isn't a stunner. Sca (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of things we post (basically everything in ITNR) are "always going to happen". Doesn't mean it's not rare or notable. We're not in contact with either of the Pioneer, and New Horizons was only launched in 2006 (compared to 1977 of the Voyagers) and is slower. This will literally not happen again with any certainty for another few decades. -- KTC (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not fair to say that everything in ITNR are "always going to happen". For example take the Football World Cup. The event itself might be "always going to happen", but a particular country winning is not, and that is what's being posted. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose orange tagged for refs --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on the references issue only. The Uranus section is entirely lacking in refs, and the Neptune section is about 1/2 unreferenced.  Fix those two things, and this is fine for posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 05:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Subject to sourcings/improvements. Regardless if it is second or not, this is pretty mind-blowing, and is up there with the pinnacle of human achievement, along with the wheel, the Internet and the Corby trouser press.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; constructing something that then leaves the solar system is a rare and notable achievement. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb2 on notability. We post flybies and this is at least as notable. w umbolo   ^^^  12:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made improvements to the "Encounter with Uranus" section, adding citations. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better. Ackatsis (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job! Now we only need some work on the Jupiter and Neptune sections, and this will be in a decent shape to post. --Tone 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added some extra cites to the Neptune and Jupiter sections. Ackatsis (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. I think the updates are sufficient. Not perfect but good enough. --Tone 14:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support the notability opposition is, well, bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll support any man-made object leaving the Heliosphere except objects kicked into space by Lionel Messi (we post too many soccer records already). --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't need to worry about that, Messi's great, but not interstellar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - a notable achievement.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-wording request Can we please re-word "man-made" to "human-made"? By the way, I add post-posting support for this article. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TenorTwelve, you seem to be right per MOS:S/HE and WP:GNL, so I've now requested a fix at WP:ERRORS. I also add post-posting support for the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! While this is Wikipedia, NASA's style guide also calls for usage of terms such as crewed/unscrewed or human spaceflight or piloted/unpiloted or robotic, etc. as opposed to manned/unmanned etc. The only exception NASA gives is if a historical program or a building specifically said/says "manned" in its official name. I think it can be similarly applied and it appears that Wikipedia's Manual of Style has something on this, too! I thought there was, but I didn't know where to look. Thank you for finding it for me. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Joseph Gibbons

 * Weak oppose this is pretty much nothing beyond a stub. If it could be expanded a little then game on but right now, it's too slim to feature, for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is a bit short. If it is expanded, then it could be in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The Rambling Man and Susmuffin, thanks for the feedback. I've expanded it a little if you'd like to take another look? - Dumelow (talk)
 * Support Looks sufficiently expanded.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The lead is slightly overloaded in comparison to the length of the body but the article seems well sourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Eric Anderson

 * Comment: two unsourced paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Issues fixed. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose once again, this is realistically what we'd consider a stub. What's there is fine, but if that's all we have to say I don't think it's enough right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom, now qualifies under RD criteria, thanks to hard work by and others. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Rikster2 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've marked this as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC) ... hello? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohammed Aruwa

 * Support Looks okay to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support not sure about that image licence, the content of the article is just about okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Copa Libertadores

 * Support – Article seems to have been updated after the match with the latest developments. Clearly a very notable game. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No importance. We shouldn't post every single league from every end of the world to the ITN, otherwise the ITN would be flooded with sports news and not much else. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As an ITNR item, the event's merits should not be discussed here, only the content and worthiness of the article in its current state. Besides that, this is the second-largest continental club competition by revenue/viewership, eclipsing a lot of American sports championships, so perhaps you should check your biases before declaring it to be of no importance.  Sounder Bruce  23:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure there's no rule against re-starting a discussion about why this particular item got into the ITNR in the first place. Which is exactly what I had done.
 * Also, you giving me a neutrality warning (!!!) for this opinion kinda deprecates everything else you've said after. Goodbye. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ITNR discussions belong at WT:ITNR, not in candidate sections per In the news.  Sounder Bruce  00:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not ready. This should definitely be posted per ITNR, but there's no prose summary of the matches. Lots of material on the incidents surrounding the event doesn't make up for having no description of the actual sporting contests. Needs at least a paragraph each of fully-referenced prose on both legs. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The new match summaries just about meet the minimum requirements. The article isn't great but it will have to do. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I've fixed the citation needed stuff, and the tenses, but it does need a prose summary of the matches. I haven't got time to do this now, but will do later if no-one else has. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Doesn't seem significant to most English-speaking readers. Unsee on major Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and the Beeb are reporting on it, to be fair. Not much stateside, but then again it is football. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It got plenty of coverage here in the UK, at least for the second leg - shown live on TV, the national newspapers had articles before and after the game etc. Regardless, it's on ITNR so significance is already established. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that "most-English speaking readers" do not find this event significant? MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Senior Guy At The Office Cartoon.svg

Yes, I have it right here in my desk drawer. Sca (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Some writeup/recap on the final matches should be included. Those opposing on importance need to take that to ITNR. --M asem (t) 16:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support w/ added prose. --M asem (t) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. The matches have prose, and with this being ITN/R the opposes that speak to notability as opposed to quality are of course not relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is the only criterion here and the prose looks sufficient.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Bergland

 * Posted Stephen 22:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rod Jones

 * Oppose Actually not ready for mainpage. Very stubby. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it some more. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak support. It's now stub, at less than 180 words it can be read within 45 seconds by average reader. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Per assume good faith. Start class. Fully sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose once again, what's there is decent but it's not quite start-class, i.e. it's bascially a stub. Expand by a few sentences and I'm all in.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added some more --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 MLS Cup

 * Comment – In the U.S., MLS is widely understood as referring to the Multiple Listing Service of the real estate industry. Sca (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the real estate business, but MLS redirects to Major League Soccer. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already post 7 football stories each year (per WP:ITNR), and this is not one of the top trophies in the sport. MLS is somewhere around the 10th best domestic league. The last time this was discussed MLS wasn't even mentioned as a possibility for a domestic league, and LaserLegs themselves felt we already over-represented the topic. Just not important enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we post a lot of European soccer, this one isn't in Europe. ITN/R discussion irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I generally don't support posting even the conclusion of the top domestic leagues that garner a lot more attention worldwide than the MLS. This is perhaps a good-faith nomination far from being sufficiently notable for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose MLS is not at the level where it warrants ITNR coverage, unfortunately. It will take a few years of clear dominance at the continental level and domestically when competing with other sports leagues before it should be considered.  Sounder Bruce  19:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good shape and MLS is one of the major leagues in US.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We cannot post the conclusion of every domestic sports league in every country (we'd post little else), and so we have to draw the line somewhere. For me that means we should only post the most significant domestic leagues in the most significant sports. While football (soccer) is clearly one of the internationally most significant sports, MLS is not in the top tier of domestic football leagues (it's third tier at best) and it's not in the top tier of US domestic sports leagues (it's second tier at best) so it doesn't make the cut. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - MLS isn't even arguably the best soccer league in North America, nor is it at the tier of other leagues that are on ITN:R as per other commenters. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we've got the balance about right at the moment on ITNR football stories. Given that we don't post the results of leagues that are clearly higher tier than MLS (i.e. Brazil Série A, broadcast in half the countries of world, Serie A or Ligue 1), this is clearly a non-runner. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "right balance" is 3 European domestic leagues and none from anywhere else? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment my disdain for soccer is known to a few -- I live in Atlanta which is how I learned about it this year, and the nom is indeed good faith. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - much and all as my inner football aficionado loves Atlanta's rise to prominence, the MLS is just simply not on the same level as any of the major European leagues, in terms of following or quality, (I would personally have France, Portugal, Netherlands, and Russia ahead of it), and is far behind the size and scope of its competing American leagues. The league is certainly growing, but it is not big enough for ITN yet. Besides, if you are sick of European football, the Copa Libertadores wraps up today too. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They filled that stadium to capacity too, which really shocked me considering we're in the deep south. Doomed as this nom is, I hope it gets left open a bit longer so I know what the objections will be going in to next year. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Never heard of this league. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first division of the world's most popular sport in the most populous English speaking country. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself on the subject being discussed, stay out of the conversation. ghost 01:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lyudmila Alexeyeva

 * Comment Just added a bunch of [citation needed] tags. Also, I feel like the article should at least mention her love for Putin and other weird acts/statements. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the citations and added a bit about her meeting with Putin for her 90th birthday. Feel free to expand on this if you have the sources - Dumelow (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - notable dissident. Article is fully referenced, but appears incomplete as it has no information before 1968, when she was already 41. -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks much better now. Though I think it would be better if that book section is trimmed to list just few publications. We are not catalog. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Especially if the lead can be tweaked to remove or rephrase "one of the last Soviet dissidents still active in modern Russia" which seems like an odd thing to write about a deceased person. Yakikaki (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The lead should not be tweaked: it's well-sourced, objective and describes an exceptional personality. That "eulogy" was written in 2004, when she was alive. There's a bit more info on her life before 1968 in the AP article, reference #3. Wakari07 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Yakikaki's concern was the "still active" wording (and it's mine too). Perhaps just "active" or qualifying it with a date "at the time of her death was one of the last..." or "described in 2004 as one of..." or something like that. To me the "still" implies a continuing action, which cannot be the case now she has died. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD, I made it "active". Wakari07 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Belisario Betancur

 * Support I well sourced the article to make sure it would be ITN ready. Beat me to it! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and readyBabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support meets RD requirements, updated and sourced --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer becomes leader of CDU

 * Question: Does this qualify as ITN/R? See In the news/Recurring items --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If election of a head of a major party (which is, you know, isn't even a governmental post) in a 80-something million country qualifies for the ITN, I don't know how elections of actual governors in 100- and 200- million provinces across India and China should not. And that's a very slippery slope. Oppose. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously if she had replaced Merkel as Chancellor, that would be ITN/R, but she hasn't, she's only replaced her as the head of the CDU. The next election for Chancellor isn't until 2021. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment In the 69 years that germany has their own government the CDU was 49 years of it in power as the ruling party. In these 49 years the chairman of the CDU has always been the cancellor until today. Its safe to say that the party voted today its cancellor candidate for the Next German federal election, as Angela Merkel resigns with the end of the current legislative period in 2021. Opinion If there is not any political news for saturday that is more history-laden than the CDU election, there is not much against it to show this news at the main page for one day. LennBr (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually that's all rather WP:CRYSTAL. AKK could be Chancellor even before the next election if Merkel retires and/or is forced out, tho even that isn't guaranteed given that CDU+CSU have no majority in Parliament. It is NOT 'safe to say that the party voted today its Chancellor candidate for the Next German federal election' (which is not due until 2021) - she could easily be replaced if she does poorly in opinion polls, or gets caught up in some scandal, or falls ill (or dies), or whatever - and in 1980 the Chancellor candidate for the right was CSU leader Franz Josef Strauss, not CDU leader Helmut Kohl, and this could happen again, especially if AKK's similarity to Merkel comes to be seen as an electoral liability, and/or if the CSU leader is seen as better placed to prevent CDU/CSU voters switching to the AfD. And it's not easy to win an election after your party has been in office for 16 years and your previous leader is retiring because voters seem tired of her and you are seen as very similar to her, so being CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate may not mean all that much in 2021. (Of course this is arguably also all a bit WP:CRYSTAL on my part, but then somebody seemingly ought to try to point out some of the apparent inaccuracies in the previous comment). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Important though it is for the EU, it's domestic politics. Sca (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not even clear that it is important for the EU unless and until she becomes Chancellor (and even then it should be rather trivial for the EU compared to things like Brexit (let alone Climate change, etc)).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In a general sense, high-level German political change is important to the EU, as Germany is the EU's most populous state and its leading economy. But yes, if she were to become Kanzlerin that would be blurbable. Sca (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose As noted above, domestic politics. Would be blurbed when she actually becomes the chancellor. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If/when she replaces Merkel as Chancellor of Germany, then I will support a blurb. Unless & until that happens, this is just internal leadership of one political party. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 00:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above, this is currently just a change in leadership of the party, not the chancellor. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Chabahar suicide bombing

 * Oppose - if this had been a school shooting, or a bombing elsewhere in the general region it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Juxlos (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose another collapsing regime in the region. Not important. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd better review What Wikipedia is not, specially see WP:NOTBLOG. Saff V. (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, regarding the two callous responses above. I could support this, but it is a stub at present. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's a bad thing and all, yes, but if a school shooting killed a single digit number in the US it has a 90% chance of failing ITN. Bombings in Kabul don't even get nominated half the time. Juxlos (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Juxlos: I know what you say, but it's not accurate to compare school shootings in the United States or terrorist attacks in Kabul with a rare incident in Iran. -- M h hossein   talk 16:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 *  Weak Oppose  terrorist attacks in Iran are not nearly as common as they are in the over-represented failed state of Pakistan, but the article is a little bit short even for the barely-above-stub standard we've come to accept for our usual disaster porn articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, by passing the time, information will be collected, subsequently article will include more deteils.Any way if it is neccesary, I would ask Mhhossein to give it try and provide more information into the article.Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the belated response. I'll add some more data to the article. But for now, I should say that the toll is not accurate. Most of the sources, are saying at least 2 people were killed, while the article is showing something else.-- M h hossein   talk 18:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article is short but adequate. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Per my previous comment. Moreover, I've added more info to the article so the article is no longer too short for the ITN. -- M h hossein   talk 16:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While terrorist attacks are not that common in Iran, 3 deaths (including the perpetrator) is not the kind of death toll that makes it to ITN. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. Having an article about this is legitimately encyclopedic, but giving it front-page publicity tends to work as (presumably unwitting) propaganda for the terrorist cause - they are likely to see making a fairly widely-viewed Western front page as a success, which may then encourage them to kill more innocent people, which is not what Wikipedia and ITN is supposed to be doing (per WP:IAR and WP:5P5 if necessary if a supporting rule is needed). In practice, we probably can't avoid posting all such incidents, but we probably need to be very reluctant to do so, and especially when there are few deaths, and when it is in a non-Western country, as posting on our front page in either of these cases then in practice risks giving up to several days of additional free publicity to an incident that is no longer getting any other significant publicity elsewhere in the West.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) The Game Awards 2018

 * Support - I don't see any reason not to, considering the vast amount of media coverage the event got. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 07:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I think widening the scope of award shows at ITN is good. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait This isn't really a support or oppose opinion. Merely that, with something like this, let's wait for a full consensus to develop, otherwise I can well see it devolving into a pull or not pull debate if it's put up too quickly. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The Game Awards were established in 2014, just 4 years ago, so I'm not sure about its prestige and importance as the highest achievement in video game industry. Brandmeistertalk  10:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Video Game Awards bore out from the Spike Video Game Awards which started in 2003. Same core organizer but who wanted to get from Spike TV over commercialism. --M asem (t) 11:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I do not see this as being particularly notable in the grand scheme of ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that ITN exist so that people could provide arguments for and against their position, and not just state "this is not important" or "I do not see this as being particularly notable in the grand scheme of ITN". Also, since you're saying this, do I understand that right that you then do consider various horse racing events and other local Canadian hockey championships - that we do post here - to be "important" in "the grand scheme of things"? Openlydialectic (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've stated my position. This is not notable. There's nothing to establish its notability as an award show in comparison to other gaming award shows.--WaltCip (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you just baselessly made a vote without explaining why you voted in a way that you did, which goes against the WP:NOTVOTE rule. Good luck.
 * Question. I'm not opposed to having some form of games awards on ITN, but we should restrict blurbs to the most prestigious award ceremony. Are the Game Awards more important in the field than the Golden Joystick Awards, BAFTA Game Awards or Game Developers Choice Awards? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We post several film awards, I'd be ok with several game awards which are both in the news and have a quality update. We've not had that problem yet, IIRC this is the first game award of any sort nominated of any sort. One reason I'm supporting this is I actually saw it "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Golden Joysticks are fully audience voted, so generally not top. Whereas the weight difference between this, BAFTA, and GDCA -- this tends to get the on the spot coverage in gaming RSes, while the others get noticed after said events, despite said events also being broadcast/streamed live. Its a perception issue. --M asem (t) 15:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It could also be an advertising issue. A lot of companies means a lot of money to throw around. I know the argument goes that we can't deny an item for not being on ITN/R, but there needs to be at least a consensus first that this particular event is noteworthy given we haven't posted it before, because honestly, as a gamer, this is the first I've heard of it.--WaltCip (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely reasonable, and if you look at the ceremony itself, 50% of it was just promos for new games. That said, the voting jury for the bulk of the awards (not the esports ones) are media outlets, listed here :, so I don't see this specific awards as commercially driven. In the case of the GDCA ones, that's run and organized by the industry's trade group so there's a tiny bit of nepotism there. --M asem  (t) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a potential fallacy here of saying we post awards shows for movies, so not posting for games would be bias (especially given historical disdain for games as an art). The Oscars carry serious juice in Hollywood. Every physicist knows their Nobel winners.  There's no evidence that artists or consumers view these as important.  ghost 12:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2017 (so, the previous), Game Awards were watched by 18.7 million people. For comparison, the 2018 Oscars were watched by 26.5 million viewers Openlydialectic (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Walt. Lacks significance for a general audience. Sca (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support notability for me comes from the industry heavies who hosted and attended the event. Article is as good as any other awards article, is well referenced, and has some prose. We post all kinds of obscure literary, mathematics, architecture, and poetry awards, we should probably post things which do have interest to a general audience like film, television, music and video games. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Going to nitpick the X of Y statement in the nom and point out for the people not familiar with this awards show that it is more like The People’s Choice Awards than the Oscars due to the voting method. The Oscars and similar award shows in its vein votes using a professional committee, whereas this award show uses a combination of a voting jury comprised of professionals (90% weight) + public polling (10% weight with some additional wackiness based on social media sharing). While it has become a significantly more popular event over the years, I wouldn’t say this is a prestigious Oscar/Emmys/Tony Awards/Grammy – style event. All that said, I think this event has grown just enough over the years to have enough notability, general news coverage, and sufficient article quality for ITN. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only existed for five years; no reason given why this should be more important than the other events mentioned above; article contains practically no content apart from which new games were advertised at the event, and a list of results. Since there are a number of these awards, it would probably be useful to have a discussion about which are the most notable. If one particular award is seen as the "gaming Oscars", then fine - go for it.  But AFAICS this is just another run-of-the-mill awards ceremony. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2017 (so, the previous), Game Awards were watched by 18.7 million people. The largest such ceremony by far For comparison, the 2018 Oscars were watched by 26.5 million viewers Openlydialectic (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Want to re-stress that before 2014, this event effectively was the Spike Video Game Awards, which started in 2003. There was a falling out between Geoff Keighley, the guy that organizes this, and Spike TV, who wanted entertainment value, so Keighley broke off and made a completely new awards show but based on the same principles that he ran Spike VGAs with. That lineage is recognized in the industry, it just doesn't show up easily on a quick pass of our WP coverage (but its there, I know I've wrote about it). --M asem (t) 20:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's already been called "the Oscar of video games" actually, both by players, game creators and specialist and generalist press. The event is young, yes, but grown dramatically, almost five times the number of viewers compared to the first edition and broadcast all over the globe. To this we add live musical performances and guests arrived from multiple branch of entertainment. It does not seem so absurd to have it in ITN. Lone Internaut (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Support in principle having Gaming Awards at ITN as an important (despite arguably still being a relatively new) economic, social and cultural phenomenon, despite my not being sufficiently interested to know or care whether these particular awards are the right ones to post. Although I have very little personal interest in video-games myself, some of the opposition expressed here reminds me of the misguided contempt by my ill-informed and complacent 'betters' for things like pop music and Science Fiction which I encountered when young (and which, incidentally, probably did me and others quite a bit of harm at the time in several different ways, but much of it to do with keeping us ill-informed, which is precisely what Wikipedia is meant to combat). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which opposition are you referring to? I don't see any comment that video game awards are ig-nobel per se, just that THIS event has not demonstrated notability. ghost 19:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, ghost, it was a (possibly mistaken) impression I got from reading the comments at the time. Perhaps unwisely, I didn't go looking for precise instances, either then or now, to try to minimize the risk that going into specifics might cause individual editors to take it personally and/or get me involved in a debate which I wasn't (and amn't) interested in having. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And having had a further look at it, I notice that there is often a significant difference between the impression conveyed by somebody's initial comment and the more nuanced impression conveyed once opponents have forced them to clarify their position (although this is not the case with regard to your own carefully-nuanced initial position). Quite likely much the same could also have been said about attitudes to things like pop music and Science Fiction when I was young, if such attitudes had been expressed on a forum such as this, had such a forum been available at the time. Incidentally much the same seems actually also true of the Ig Nobel Prize mentioned by you in your question - it seemingly began as ridicule pure and simple, but is now at least officially the more nuanced 'research that first makes you laugh, and then makes you think' (or some similar wording, which presumably among other things conveniently allows its organizers to deny all sorts of criticisms, such as that such a prize would have been used to ridicule Copernicus and Darwin in their day, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Which is weird because the show has gotten vast media coverage, even outside of the general gaming publications. New York Times, LA Times, and USA Today have all written about the event in some capacity. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And those said by Dissident are just few, there are others all around the world in foreign language for example. I mean, hard to say TGA didn't have resonance. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Nowadays the video game industry is much bigger than the film or music industry. Yet we cover all kinds of awards of the latter two, but barely of the video games. It's about time to change that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Black Kite. No evidence that this is particularly the top event in its field, or majorly renowned. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2017 (so, the previous), Game Awards were watched by 18.7 million people. For comparison, the 2018 Oscars were watched by 26.5 million viewers Openlydialectic (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The The Game Awards seem to hold a relatively contentious role in the video game industry, moreso than the other awards frequently posted on the front page. I would prefer not to present them over other gaming awards, like the aforementioned Golden Joystick Awards, BAFTA Game Awards, or Game Developers Choice Awards. Though The Game Awards try to present themselves as the main award ceremony for video games, I do not believed they have reached that status yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 22:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you just have to be immersed into the industry to know how small these awards are. I wish they announced their viewership numbers, but apparently only The Game Awards do. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These three are certainly less popular, but they are longer-running and more respected. I do not entirely know what the ITN inclusion criteria is for award ceremonies. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 22:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * >they are more respected. I'd disagree. I wish there's a way to verify respectability, but I don't think there is. The only thing I know for sure is that they are both less popular and have far less coverage than the TGA. And I'd argue that this - this influence - is the only thing that matters. The Nobel Peace prize is hardly respectable nowadays, but it's still getting posted because it's widely covered by the media and everyone wants to know who the winner of this award is. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - this event has grown in prestige over the years and I think has taken a spot as one of the major nights for the gaming industry. Big-name developers and figures in the industry attend this event, major announcements are made during the show, and as Openlydialectic has pointed out several times it is watched by a large audience. Regarding its importance vis-à-vis other gaming awards, I don't really see that conversation as relevant given there is a lack of evidence about the prestige and importance of those other shows in comparison to these awards. If that conversation is to be had, I think it should be had at ITN:R since a reoccurring post about gaming awards is likely ITN:R material. A decision on which one people want to post about yearly can be made there, but on the presented facts of the Game Awards on their own, I think this should be posted. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 01:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, relatively niche pop-culture interest, and not of huge international or historical importance. WP already has a problem of too much focus on pop culture over more serious and important issues. Video game are really not that important. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As much as I might be opposed to the posting of this particular event, it's probably a bit of a stretch to say that video games are a "niche interest" given that at least this particular event had viewings similar to the Oscars. Outside of Western Europe, the U.S. and Japan, maybe.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose In response to the comparisons to the Oscars and Grammys, I don't think video games have the same mass appeal as movies and music yet. It will take another 10-20 years or so for that to happen. Also, a good part of the Game Awards was advertising for upcoming games, which makes me take it less seriously as a genuine award ceremony and more of a commercial event. The ceremony is still pretty new and needs some more time to gain a track record. TarkusAB talk 10:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support because the oldest blurb is pretty old at this point. If we had no shortage of blurbs this might not be significant enough to qualify, but as it is I'm supporting. Banedon (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Poe's Law in effect here? Clearly we do not post something because we haven't posted anything in awhile. ghost 20:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest event of year in gaming Тухлопуз (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively insignificant awards ceremony. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant coverage from reliable video game sources and non-video game sources alike. Significant viewership, especially in comparison to that of the Oscars. Video gaming is not a niche thing as it use to be. They are part of the mainstream. Practically anyone with a cellphone is playing a video game. In America at least (which this show is based out of), there are more households with game consoles than not. The article itself is well put together and well documented. Furthermore, for those saying this is a "new" show, not really. Yes, "The Game Awards" have only been around for five years, but this show was born out of the Spike Video Game Awards, which was around from 2003 to 2013, before essentially becoming The Game Awards. -- JDC808  ♫  23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Time to call this I think. A !vote count is even, a few opposes dismiss the "significance" of video games I think can be dismissed outright, some serious opposes around the relative newness of the event are reasonable and merit consideration. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Hennig

 * Support - Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "During this time, Hennig also appeared in the independent film, The Wrestler, where he faced Verne Gagne at the Cow Palace in the opening match." In the opening match of the film or the opening match of the card at the Cow Palace?  I would assume the former, but it's unclear from the way it's worded.  More importantly, the AWA didn't run shows at the Cow Palace until at least five or six years after the film's release.  There was another promotion affiliated with the National Wrestling Alliance which ran the Cow Palace throughout the 1960s and 1970s.  The paragraph's only source makes no mention of the film or the match.  Speaking of unclear wording, one would assume from the photo and caption that he was making a personal appearance at Domino's Pizza, yet one is left to wonder whether they could have been announcing that they actually hired him to work there.  Finally, such a fractured chronology may work for a Tarantino film, but it left me somewhat dizzy.  The section "Knee injury" begins by discussing a knee injury, while the section as a whole covers many distinct phases of his career stretching over nearly a decade.  Many folks from outside WP:PW have complained over the years that these biographies are really dumping grounds of wrestling trivia and the project's cherry-picked sources.  It seems to me that separating everything by wrestling promotion puts too much weight on the promotions themselves at the expense of this being a proper biography.  We're rewarding that behavior by placing a link on the main page?  Hmmm...  For example, Hennig enjoyed a fair amount of success in Japan throughout his career;  according to his ja.wiki article, he toured there over a span of nearly two decades.  This longevity was mostly due to his connection to Harley Race, who became one of the more beloved gaijin wrestlers long before that became a popular phenomenon.  Pro wrestling in Japan receives significant mainstream media attention.  I see no reason why that was ignored other than the fact that someone wanted to give undue weight to other things. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Valbuena

 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I would like to include in the nomination José Castillo, if possible, who died alongside Valbuena in a traffic accident. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Add a new nom for him. BabbaQ (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Castillo's article is not in such great shape as of now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pete Shelley

 * Support Pretty much fully cited now. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few LGBT categories on his article, but I don't see them supported in the article. There's a mention of Homosapien being banned by the BBC for the references to gay sex, but nothing to support that Shelley was bisexual. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It was at this time that Shelley talked about his bisexuality". - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also stuck an extra cite in after that sentence, just to make it clearer. Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I stuck in the Rolling Stone ref for the same reason (but dropped it at the end, as it covers the whole bit). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - sorry, I missed that bit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Much improved by SchroCat, This has now been ready for nearly 14 hours? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 14:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dynamite Kid

 * Oppose for now, too many uncited paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dumelow, too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Still drinking the Kool-Aid, I see. The nomination template and WP:ITNRD both make a vague reference to "quality".  Every time I come to this page, the discussion frames "quality" solely in terms of the mere existence or non-existence of citations, often without regard for whether they're to reliable sources.  This article has at least a few other problems than that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well solving one problem at a time seems most logical to me. Cite everything (it's a BLP after all, nothing to do with RD or its nomination template) and then check over for reliable sources.  Then check for NPOV and encyclopedic writing.  Then consider supporting.  Right now, we're on step 1.  And I have no idea what Kool-Aid has to do with this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We routinely discuss the use of unreliable sources here. BLPs often cite wikis, personal blogs, and IMDB. But step one of evaluating sources is having sources. ghost 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) GSAT-11

 * Oppose – I'm sure it's no small feat for India, but a relatively unnotable event in international spaceflight, as many satellites with the purpose of aiding telecommunication are launched by various countries and launch service providers on a regular basis. In addition, the GSAT-11 and Ariane flight VA246 articles leave much to be desired. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 12:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The heaviest satellite by one particular nation is not a particularly noteworthy record. Also, the article is still in future tense, with no prose update since the launch. This might make a good WP:DYK, if it can be sufficiently expanded to qualify there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article quality is very low and the event itself not notable enough for ITN. Mkwia (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until now I wasn't aware that "heaviest satellite" was even a thing really. Stubby article, not really seeing it as newsworthy, maybe a DYK option.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Michael McComie

 * Weak oppose appreciate the nom's comments, it's still barely above stub for me, everything there is fine, but just not full enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a fair bit larger but my additions were reverted. I am in discussion with the other editor to readd what I think is useful information, but I'll not die in a ditch over it - Dumelow (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'd move on and ignore.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support Seems the issue has been resolved, the article looks little better now. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nika Rurua

 * Posted Stephen 04:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Selma Engel-Wijnberg

 * Support - Seems ready. sourced. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wilmer Clemont Fields

 * Support Looks good and marking ready, but would probably age off pretty soon. Zigzig20s, because this is a new article, you may want to consider nominating this for DYK.  Spencer T• C 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer: How long do you anticipate that it would stay on the main page please?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It already would have aged off; the oldest RD item now has a more recent date of death than Fields. I'm going to go ahead and close this nom and suggest for DYK.  Spencer T• C 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - ready to be posted ASAP.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Kim Chol-man

 * Support per nom, looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Qatar to leave OPEC

 * Oppose per nom. When they leave, we should post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it officially leaves --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - January is slow for news anyway, so we can post it if Qatar goes through with their decision. Clearly of significant and merit for ITN, but only once it happens. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Let's wait until it actually happens. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd actually favor posting now, since the story is in the news now, and now is when people will be interested in the related Wikipedia article. However, I don't know what that related Wikipedia article is.  I'm not entirely sure which article we are pushing out as the work we are asking our readers to check out.  Unless and until we have something to assess the quality of, I don't know what we're supposed to assess. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should wait until Qatar actually withdraws from OPEC. 18:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) OSIRIS-REx arrives at Bennu

 * Question has this been independently verified or are we trusting NASA at their word on it? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the NASA-lies-about-boring-science-missions conspiracy theory. Perhaps you could enlighten us on it? Of course, your theory would need to be independently verified. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the Chinese-geneticist-lies-about-gene-therapy conspiracy theory until recently, but it's forced me to call into question the legitimacy of all science news. #trustnoone --LaserLegs (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The trajectory has been a matter of public record ever since it left Earth two years ago. No reliable source has ever expressed the slightest doubt in the position as reported by NASA. They have released imagery proving that the spacecraft was getting close, and the rendezvous process was broadcast live on TV. Besides, this is an engineering achievement, not a scientific result (yet). I suspect you're just being WP:POINTy. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya think?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I lean towards WP:AGF. So should you. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This counts as WP:ITNR. The article looks good on quality, though we could surely manage more than a one sentence update. I've added an altblurb that avoids WP:SEAOFBLUE and matches the wording we used for Hayabusa2. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have added a bit more to explain what this event is (NASA considers this arrival as the unit does not have a usual "touch-down" event) and what will happen before sampling. --M asem (t) 18:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added both the above still and the animated GIF (File:Asteroid-Bennu-OSIRIS-RExArrival-GifAnimation-20181203.gif) from NASA to the image protection queue. --M asem (t) 19:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support has been updated, is significant and ITNR --DannyS712 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support could use the gif for the main page for extra pizazz. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks okay.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Yellow vests movement (French tax protests)

 * Support huge protests Openlydialectic (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the French opposing that their fuel prices have hit the same as those in the UK? And the French are protesting about something?  Nope.  And given this rumbling has been going on (and is likely to go on) for months, this is only really applicable to Ongoing, a few hundred arrests is nowhere near the ITN event bar. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For real? Largest protests in any western country in almost a decade, 3 people already dead, almost a thousand injured, and you are saying this is nothing? Wow. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise it was bigger than the Women's March, the marches against Trump, the Brexit protests etc. So yes, I'm saying this is nothing unusual for France.  And as I noted, it's either "ongoing" or nothing.  So probably "nothing".  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know those marches resulted in multiple deaths and hundreds of injured. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I must have mis-read when you claimed "The largest protests in any western country in almost a decade" then. Still oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor is this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. The 200,000+ views since this discussion didn't come from the Main Page, I can assure you. &mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support About a week and a half ago, I saw wider coverage of these protests, but at the time, they were not really violent. With the violence now involved, I think this at least merits a blurb now, potentially ongoing. --M asem (t) 16:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think ongoing is better since the protests have been going on for a couple of days. If state of emergency is declared, this would merit a separate blurb. --Tone 16:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN, would support ongoing per Tone. Mkwia (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support as the protests/riots have been very big and are still ongoing. The crisis meeting and reports of possible state of emergency only valids how serious this news is. --Wq639 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, I don't think this rises to the level of a stand-alone blurb yet. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, for either blurb or ongoing (maybe ongoing is a somewhat better choice). Worst nationwide mass riots in France since 1968. IMO, that's sufficient to pass both the blurb and ongoing bars. Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - it began two weeks ago and is still ongoing. -Zanhe (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ongoing looks like the best choice for now. Sca (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above and the fact that the protests aren't over --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing (and oppose standalone blurb at the moment). - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose any posting because the article is crap. A separate history and background section -- how is that not the same thing? No timeline, some content about events a week ago and a little sentence fragment about a death in Arles. Zero detail about it, just that it happened. Come on, this isn't comprehensive at all, which is an actual requirement of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is there an easter egg "French fuel protests" to the target article yellow vests movement? The fuel tax shouldn't be the focus here, otherwise we need to pull this from ongoing as the tax increase has now been suspended .--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The better target article in theory would be protests against Emmanuel Macron, but it is terrible in terms of quality. The recent protests are barely covered. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no better target for Yellow vest movement on en.wp than Yellow vests movement. This was apparently rickrolled by an admin named Stephen who has been asked to explain their actions, for which no consensus can be found above.&mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) China and US trade war truce

 * Oppose As I read the statement, this still requirements work in both countries' governments to come to agreements and legislation to back the deals made. --M asem (t) 05:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreso to the point is how the WSJ covers the talks - its steps forward, but not any massive milestone. --M asem (t) 05:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Both parties agree that they will endeavor to have this transaction completed within the next 90 days. If at the end of this period of time, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the 10% tariffs will be raised to 25%." - in other words, the tariff rises might happen anyway, so there's certainly no point posting this - if it is indeed important enough for ITN, which I doubt - until that 90 days is up. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted before me, this is just a "maybe", nothing more, certainly not "one of the most important events of the decade in international politics". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose more Trump fake deals. They've postponed escalation, not rolled back any existing tariffs, and bullshit nothing language like "by a significant amount" without any concrete deals is completely meaningless. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They've vaguely agreed to postpone further action while more talks are held. If further tariffs are imposed that might be worth an ITN blurb (depending on the scale), but continuation of the status quo does not. Also, the article seems to be heavily one sided, favouring the US. I suspect it fails WP:NPOV. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Vague and nebulous. Sca (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This sort of nothingism is meant to manipulate speculators in the market, probably so Trump can get the stock market to end the year in positive territory. As pointed out above, totally easy for him to claim a month later "they're not holding up their end of the deal" and just roll forward with the tariffs anyway. WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing has really happened yet. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 23:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Sherwen

 * Oppose too much of the bio is unreferenced, BLP vio. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple more. Is it still too unreferenced for RD? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Far too unreferenced for RD. We need citations for virtually every statement of fact (see WP:CHALLENGE), not just a handful. ghost 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above, too many unreferenced statements. Career achievements section has no references. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ken Berry

 * Support when ready. Article has an orange tag from five years ago, and is lacking on references.  Calidum   01:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current form, due to orange tag, but support once this is dealt with --DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the previous two, of course. It's RD so "support when ready" (and variations) is unnecessary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. I have fond memories of Mr. Berry. But yeah, this one is going to need a lot of work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Stearney

 * Question - is he notable? I'm certainly not an expert on military notability, but the article was only created today.  Obviously there are reliable sources reporting his death but I see nothing in the article pre-dating that.  I would expect sources reporting on his notability whilst he was still alive, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:MILNG Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. For historical reasons I'm always dubious about notability guidelines set up by Wikiprojects but this does appear to be long-standing.  However, the article is still only sourced to the US Navy and obituaries, it'd be useful to flesh it out a bit. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support I would imagine individuals in this position within the USN are inherently notable, but happy to be proved wrong. Article is lightweight, hence weak support, but what's there is okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Literally transformative leader in his field. Death necessitates actual change in a top position, but not famous enough for a blurb. Temporarily famous enough to expect more sources and facts soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Patricia Head Minaldi

 * Oppose I feel there are still WP:UNDUE issues - although improved by User:Safiel, half of this short article deals with her handling of one case, her conviction and her medical leave. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)