Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2019

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.

(Closed) Largest contract in team sports (excluding secret soccer contracts?)

 * Oppose As big of a baseball fan as I am, (a) I don't think we should post sports contracts at all, and (b) to be pedantic, he hasn't signed it yet. It's an agreement that hasn't put pen to paper. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rich athlete gets paid more money by rich team is not news. (WaltCip, logged out) --128.227.165.102 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , two wrongs don't make a right. I opposed that one too. See, no anti-Euro bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment some missing refs in the body, and the accomplishments section has basically none. Needs to be fixed before it can go to the main page. It's more money they Neymar so if y'all get the article fixed up it should be posted in even less than four hours. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist that all mistakes must be repeatedly made forever? Why, because someone does a wrong thing, must you insist they be forced to do the wrong thing again the next time it comes up?  Can people not improve and better themselves?  Can people not take the opportunities to stop committing mistakes and doing wrong things?  To use the mistakes of the past to justify continuing to make them forever is just... weird... -- Jayron 32 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually don't, and have not supported posting this. I do think it's worthwhile to point out past discussions on similar nominations, especially when those discussions were contentious, but if that isn't the case, please advise accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neymar's contract was for €296MM/5 years, or about $67MM/year, which is roughly twice what Harper is getting. In addition to that, PSG paid his old club €222MM just for the rights to sign him.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not happening. Notice the blue tag at the top of the article. Notice the complete lack of update in the article. That's because it's based on unconfirmed reports via anonymous sources. Obviously the Phillies and Harper's camps would be denying it if it wasn't true, but it's still an agreement that hasn't yet been consummated and probably won't be until the weekend, or Monday. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The total money for a contract seems an arbitrary metric to claim it's somehow significant, on a per-year basis many team athletes make more money. This seems worded in a particular way to make it seem more impressive.  Also, the article quality is not up to main-page standards.  -- Jayron 32 16:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First reason for opposition is that the Phillies have not confirmed the contract yet; as of right now, this is based on anonymous sources.  Second reason per Jayron32--it's not the largest contract by average annual value and is only the largest due to it's unusually large length; several athletes (Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar) make double what Bryce Harper is reported to be receiving annually, and Harper isn't even the highest paid baseball player by average annual value. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Oppose Quality, timing, and lack of relative importance. --M asem (t) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – on lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norma Paulus

 * Support Looks ready to go. There is one cn tag but the unverified statement could just be removed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support cn resolved, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled): André Previn

 * Support No major issues in article, important figure in music world Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. Article main body well-sourced. Unfortunately the huge list of recordings has not a single source; suspect it may need to be hived off before the article can get to Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a blurb once the article up to scratch - definitely one of the leaders in his field (I would also suggest for best effect not necessarily putting the blurb in the right order...) O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD on quality - I just added 33 refs for the recordings section - support blurb pending improvements - marked as ready (for RD) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * to RD &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Look I am putting in the right support ..... but not necessarily in the right order. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORKED André Previn discography-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb transformative figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Although I'm a little unsure of his wider notability, in the U.S. Previn was a household name for decades. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He was a household name in the UK (though chiefly thanks to Morecambe and Wise more than anything else) and continental Europe, so support blurb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very well known in U.K. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment LOL -- that was fast. TWO dead Germans in the box in just two weeks. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very interesting comment. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Too fast. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose, goes against consensus on RD blurbs. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL - we went fron "major transformative world leader" to "Very well known in U.K." Quick, somebody start WP:LagerfeldEffect  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing "major transformative world leader" written down anywhere as the agreed criterion. My comment was, in part, a response to Sca. My comment may not even be a fact, although I think you'll find it could be easily sourced. It's just my opinion. Also, Previn used to wear those terrible polo-neck sweaters. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And what did you wear in the mid-'70s? Post a pic please. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All hands needed on deck, as vast armies of vandals, trolls and Putinbots are clearly conspiring to keep "wearing terrible polo-neck sweaters" out of the criteria for RD blurbs (but fortunately it's not needed explicitly, as it makes him a transformative world leader in the field of fashion). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if joking? "Major transformative world leader" is the explicit standard for if one deserves a blurb. So maybe pull until everyone can review the agreed upon criterion?  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "major transformative world leaders in their field", isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's "In rare cases, major transformative world leaders in their field".  I assert that this is not such a case.  Pull.  If, a week from now, there are still wall-to-wall headlines about this person's death, you may all point at me and laugh about how I was wrong. —Cryptic 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So we first apply the MTWLITF bit. And then we whittle it down with an additional percentage criterion? What does "rare" mean? Only 5% of the leaders get posted? I must admit, I had always thought the "rare cases" to mean "rare cases of all RDs". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting pull - I actually do not expect this to be pulled (minimize disruption), but I am stating the obvious, the lack of sources on the recording section should have kept this off the RD or blurb to start. Any non-blue-linked work needs a reference. --M asem (t) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The refs are pretty bad for works and awards, many an RD have been shot down for much less. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which recordings do you believe are hoaxes, and what searches for sources have you tried? You have checked this first, right? Alright, I know the burden is on those supporting the blurb to get the sourcing sorted out, but now it's on the main page we might as well roll up our sleeves and help out. It'll get done in half the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's about quality, not contesting the information. A non-blue-linked source, I have no easy reference to look at to determine if he was involved with it. My !vote here is not so much to demand a pull but to issue my concern that it was posted with no acknowledgement about the poor reference for a main-page featured article that Martinevans pointed out. And its not that one or two missed references would be a problem, its that around 20% when I checked were unsourced, and that's just too high. --M asem (t) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to stress that I never actually expected this to have been pulled. I can understand pulling a blurb that had been up under a couple hours, but this one was on the main page long enough to make the pull disruptive. I also note I would have supported a blurb in this case otherwise, outside the ref issues. --M asem (t) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull upon reflection, it needs to come down. I'm rather surprised at some of the supports above, given the usual eye for missing refs and quality around here. There were recent RD noms that were shot down for unreferenced lists of works, not speedy posted as a blurb. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull - Is this real life? Looks like strong bias over here. So many unrefs in the article! Sherenk1 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull - I'm not sure whether it's fair that the article has so many CNs (for instance some of the CNs were added in such a way that they broke wikilinks, which were then left unfixed until I fixed them just now). But the fact remains that it has about 80 CNs and 3 orange tags, including one at the start of the article, which is surely some kind of record for a front page blurbed article.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled, neither blurb nor RD worthy as heavily tagged. Stephen 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle. Obviously it had to go because of the ref issues, but if they're fixed it should go back to a blurb. He was certainly a transformative figure in the music world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, only 64 56 tags left to go folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Little point. Fighting a losing battle, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC) But now we're back down to 39 tags left to go...


 * Comment – Pulling Previn makes English Wikipedia look very amateurish. Well, he's still on the French, German, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian Wikis. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most readers won't ever know. I suspect they'll just guess that English Wikipedia considers André Previn less notable than George Pell. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know they ain't supposed to be relevant, but Google hits would also seem to suggest that Pell is more notable.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulling (which probably few readers will even notice) doesn't make us look anywhere near as amateurish as leaving the article linked to the front page with vast numbers of tags, which would be actively advertising our amateurishness. Though ironically the only remotely sensible argument for not pulling is that we are almost all supposed to be amateurs Tlhslobus (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see "Les Wikifrogs" are happy to display AP in "Nécrologie" with a grand total of five sources.... sacre bleu! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PLEASE, no Gershwin! (Or Copeland, either.) – Sca (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's being well rewarded for changing his name from Andreas Ludwig Priwin to André George Previn, even tho he should really have changed it to André Georges Prévin if he wanted a blurb. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or even Andrew George Preview. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It was pulled because of 82 cn tags. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  05:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We obviously have a debt of gratitude to whoever had the time and inclination to add those 82 separate tags. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Devil finds work...." – Sca (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose blurb on importance, oppose RD on quality still dozens of CN tags. No notability - virtually unheard of outside of the UK and a few other Western European countries. Considering how we barely managed to post blurb about the death of Indian Prime Minister who ruled the country for more than 10 years and gave it nukes, I strongly believe posting this guy would just look outrageously biased. But then again, we almost posted blurb about Chicago mayoral elections a week ago so what do I know. I guess soon we'll be posting mayoral elections in swiss villages and blurbs about deaths of local british DJs too. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  05:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, as Swiss villages don't count as part of the Anglo-American world Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ... "virtually unheard of outside of the UK and a few other Western European countries". Is that a joke? You're seriously comparing Previn to a "local british DJ"? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What an absurd comment, . This is one of the most important figures in the arts world in the 20th century! And if he is “virtually unheard of outside the UK and a few other Western European countries”, explain how the hell he won four Oscars and ten Grammys!! I don’t need to go into details about what makes your comment so absurd, but just because you have not heard of Previn doesn’t mean other people haven’t. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The trouble is the rest of us are all living in some strange parrallel universe in which the British foolishly went home after burning down the White House in the War of 1812, so we ignorantly fail to realize that Oscars and Grammys are awards of the most glorious British Empire Tlhslobus (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why we're so keen to post a blurb about a dead American-German. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, this user was just blocked indefinitely for evasion, so he needn't do any explaining now... Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  03:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw it coming that the formality of lacking references would make "him" unfit for our holy Main page. However, the readers were interested in him even without it - the first day was Feb 28, before he appeared on the Main page. - Not that it belongs here, but to have Pell pictured (instead) hurts. Why give him prominence? No smiley. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. I really think this pulling of Previn from the main page did more harm than good. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But on the plus said, we can now feel smug about the Überheiligkeit of our Holy Main Page, as Gerda calls it. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I know of no more polite way to say it, but this is at least the 6th recent example of this particular posting admin jumping the gun.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seemingly not on this occasion (assuming you're referring to the poster rather than the puller) - there was only 1 CN and no orange tags when the blurb was posted (see here) and the same when the article was earlier posted to RD (see here). There had been 4 unopposed supports for a blurb in the previous 15 hours, and the article was marked Ready for blurb, before the blurb was posted. Two minutes later another support was added by MartinEvans123, who had earlier said quality needed improving, but was seemingly now satisfied. Over 80 tags were added after the blurb was posted, most or all by just 1 user, since indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet (although many, most, or all of the tags would have been/ would be at least arguably legitimate, at least if they had been made by a legitimate editor - I'm not sure how we are supposed to treat them given that he wasn't legit) . Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem may have been the incorrect claim above (before the blurb was posted) that the discography had been content-forked when all that had happened was that it had been copied to a new Wikilinked article, but without being removed from the parent article; however many of the new tags were added outside the discography section, so a proper content fork would presumably not have been a complete solution. However 11 of these non-discography CNs (those for the Grammys) are arguably inappropriate (as well as added in such a way as to break existing wikilinks, which had to be fixed later), being arguably already covered in the 1 citation for the Grammy section, and have since been removed, so that a content fork may arguably now come fairly close to fixing our problem (tho a counter-argument is that our awards don't normally precisely match the source, with differences in wording and in year numbering, our years usually being 1 year ahead of the  source's year both in the Previn article and in our Grammy articles  (because the 2010 awards are given early in 2011, etc) , and we were/are linking to the wrong awards at least once (but it gets worse as his Lifetime achievement is 53rd Grammies, but we currently list all that year's Lifetime achievements as 52nd Grammies, etc, so just fixing this one digit error may be a fairly major hassle); also the source, www.grammy.com, confusingly says he won 10 Grammys but lists 13 wins for him, while we list 11). And so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems a very fair analysis. As explained above, I'm sorry if my support for the blurb was premature or was less clear than it could have been. We're now down to only 36 indef-block-sock-tags, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for such a peccadillo, Martin, otherwise this place may end up looking like a queue outside a Catholic confessional, and none of us will have any time to do any proper edits. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be a good idea to complete that fork? The RD nomination is not yet stale, although there are now three more on the table. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the solution for content which could fail WP:BLP is to whisk it off to another article? That feels like a cop-out to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was fine for Michel Legrand. In fact with a substantial article there's an argument for doing it anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The fork might have to be changed from discography to 'discography and awards' (if that's legit - I'm not sure it is), as I gave up trying to fix the Grammies section after discovering that might be a lot harder than I had originally expected (for reasons partly mentioned above, and partly also at the Talk Page for the 52nd Grammy article). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I say, in a rather blasé way, "it was fine" but, just to remind everyone, a month later and we still have Michel Legrand discography, which also includes his filmography, and with a single source (for a computer game!). There's a small discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From above: "The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves". judge the update, seems clear to me, though I've not ascended to the ranks of adminship. Perhaps if we had not rushed this "critically important dead German jazz composer" to the front page in just 15 hours, the glaring defects would have been tagged and ITN spared the embarrassment. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But the update (which in this case was just the bit saying Previn was dead) and consensus to post were fine. The problem (if there actually was one at the time, which seems debatable even with the help of hindsight) was with article quality, and I'm not sure who, if anyone, is supposed to be accountable for judging that. But even if it turns out that's also the responsibility of the posting admin, if posting admins are going to get crucified by us for a case as complex and unclear (and unusual) as this one, we may end up with a lot of infuriatingly unnecessary posting delays. Also, 15 hours here (actually quite a bit more if counting from nom time) doesn't seem outrageously short, at least to me. And almost all the blame for any brief and minor ITN embarrassment at least arguably belongs to a reckless POV-pushing sockpuppet, not to the posting admin. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you want to make any improvements at André Previn? I'm not sure he's a "dead German jazz composer", critically important or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Laserlegs doesn't work on content. However, while the RD was posted and I supported the blurb, and made a clear call on consensus, it was still down to the posting admin to read the article for quality.  Oh, and forking off discographies, filmographies, or whatever, has been going on for a while so to be somehow surprised or disappointed is simply mildly amusing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I read articles before !voting. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and good for you, great job. Thanks for being that last line of defence, "your country needs you"!  It does appear we may need to look at admins posting material too swiftly, regardless of consensus, as I noted, which is, as always, a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness, TRM, the fact that you gave this one the green light with your support vote may well have contributed to this one being posted prematurely. I don't disagree that the admin should have checked the thing over before posting, but given your eagle eye for all matters main page, I would personally tend to assume that something you've personally OKd is good to go, or at least less in need of detailed checking... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha. Laser, you were the first to congratulate the Admin on his speedy posting with your "two dead Germans in a box" comment! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure you should load me with that responsibility. I'm not an admin, and the posting admin has made a few quick choices.  If I could offer any reasoning to my position, I already have, it was posted as RD with no objection (at the time) and I simply offered my perspective that I believe Previn to have been transformative and thus worthy of a blurb.  No point in pursuing blame beyond that, after all my opinions and posts could have simply been ignored, I'm not a superuser, more like a personnongratauser, so I'm not taking any flak on this one, admins need to take full and 100% responsibility for their actions when creating and updating the main page.  Perhaps someone would like to encourage the posting admin to comment rather than uniquely conversing with one or two of the contributors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't blaming you, just offering a potential scenario that may have occurred, and which may or may not be a reason for the premature posting. Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged into this any further... others can be the judge of what happens next. And if I'm ever posting stuff myself in future then I'll certainly take care whether the thing has your vote or not. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take care whoever is voting. It doesn't matter, the admin responsibility is to maintain the integrity of the main page, not to simply vote count, or even see a consensus where one doesn't exist.  Admins are charged with this responsibility, and if they continually make errors of judgement in this regard, they should not be allowed the tools to continue to do so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Repost I would not have pulled it. p  b  p  14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Grimes2, only 6 tags now remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Repost debatable as to whether it should have ever been pulled in the first place. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So is this nomination stale yet or not? The small "Orchestral music" sub-section seems to be the main part of the residual problem. Sources could perhaps be found. Or it could be commented out while we search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not stale, there are older blurbs still in the box. The large "Jazz recordings as leader/co-leader" section missing refs is an issue. You can't comment out a list of what makes a person WP:Notable and still be "minimally comprehensive" as stipulated by WP:ITN I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that section was fully sourced. But I see now that about 30 albums (mostly relinks) need a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * don't repost - It was deplorable that "he" was pulled (instead of improved or shortened) for formality reasons, but to bring him back now would look even sader. What can we do to not let such a thing happen again? The stats show that our mentioning or not doesn't make a difference when the public is interested (note that the first peak was the day before he was posted), and not to show a person on the Main page in whom the public is interested is no service to readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat ironic. Maybe a re-vote is required for Previn, unless already stale of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He could replace the last RD if the article was ready. Stephen 12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the giggling item as not important. However the "Orchestral music" sub-section is quite important - someone more familiar with classical music might be able to find sources or take the bold decision to comment it out while the search continues. Being the last entry means he's likely to be pushed off soon anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-posting as a blurb is a separate question. Looks like it's not going to happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * News-wise, it's stale. After 4,200 words, suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Cairo train disaster

 * Oppose. The article is a stub. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article contains little more text than the blurb itself would. Needs expansion before we can post it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Sca (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

 * Support ... in principle, as this tit-for-tat conflict – which seems more posturing for domestic consumption than anything else – is likely to go on for some time. Sca (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We currently have a blurb about the airstrike. We can consider ongoing when it rolls off the list. Or update the blurb. But not having both at the same time. --Tone 13:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support updating blurb. We already have a blurb on the issue that's out of date. We should update the blurb and consider ongoing if necessary one it expires off ITN. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also support updating the blurb, pointing to the 2019 India–Pakistan standoff article as it has the more updated information.Bless sins (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not a war but a tit for tat airspace violation. This is over and not an ongoing war. At least not yet. There is no evidence or implication that any of the 2 countries will take further military action. Infact we have statemens where both countries have clearly indicated their stand that they have no intentions of escalating this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your position? Are you opposing including this as "ongoing", or changing the blurb about the Balakot airstrike to include the India-Pakistan standoff, or both? There are two different proposals here.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support and I would say we need to take off "2019 Balakot airstrike" from ITN now since the recent conflict has moved ahead from that single incident.  M L talk 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose leave and update the blurb, if it's still "in the news" when the blurb expires off, drop it into ongoing. When did "ongoing first" become all the rage? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update blurb and once it rolls off, post into ongoing. Banedon (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose updating the blurb to one of:
 * Military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates after both countries conduct airstrikes.
 * India and Pakistan conduct airstrikes in each other's territory.
 * India and Pakistan skirmish in Kashmir; both claim to shoot down each other's fighter jets.
 * Bless sins (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update blurb rather than add to ongoing. Nice4What (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The Balakot airstrike has now become an Indian offensive in this tit for tat aerial conflict and so I would support removing Balakot and instead updating blurb to first blurb proposed by Bless sins with the appendix of the phrase, "in each other's territory." Thus making it,
 * Military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates after both countries conduct airstrikes in each other's territory. Amir (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update blurb - As per Bless Sins Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Update blurb - per Bless Sins. -Zanhe (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Remove the "2019 Balakot airstrike" because, now it much more than a single air strike. Pakistan has already responded in equal. Wikipedia shouldn't act as a mouthpieace for Modi. --43.251.252.148 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I now also support blurb, as nominator, and added an alternative at top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * blurb1 by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems rather outdated. – Sca (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Altblurb can have this photo after it says "an air strike by India". w umbolo   ^^^  10:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some editors have suggested in WP:ERRORS that this blurb needs an update, and some others have suggested it should be moved to Ongoing. Comments please? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates ....
 * – Outdated – it's not escalating at present. This complex and frequently changing story belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I've moved it to ongoing for now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * can you contribute to this discussion instead of just reverting? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the other discussion on errors you mean? Stephen 21:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to “Heightened tensions remain between India and Pakistan after both countries conduct airstrikes.” Improvements welcomed. Stephen 22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan releases the captured Indian pilot of downed MiG-21 Bison as a 'peace gesture'."
 * Support move to Ongoing - on reflection I think made the right call in moving it to Ongoing. It's true that the original story has been superseded by the thawing of relations in recent days, and the new phrasing makes it no longer look like a news story, but rather something which is ongoing... which is precisely the purpose of the Ongoing section smiley.png Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no further comments then I will stick it back in ongoing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not let it cycle off the list like every other item does? Stephen 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest the blurb be updated to:

Pakistan returns Indian pilot shot down over Kashmir in 'peace gesture' - The Guardian

Indian pilot handed back by Pakistan in ‘peace gesture’ - Arab News

Abhinandan: Captured Indian pilot handed back by Pakistan - BBC News120.18.121.9 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Nigerian general election

 * Comment I'm really not sure how this works, but the leading opposition rejecting the result isn't such a big deal. All elections held in Nigeria since 2003 (except 2015) sees the opposition challenging the result in court. Something along ​Muhammadu Buhari(pictured) is reelected President of Nigeria seems OK by me. Pinging - for his views as an experienced ITN contributor. As I said earlier, I'm new to ITN so if this comment seems inappropriate, kindly remove. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping The blurbs are just suggestions and you can add alternatives like I just did. Also I don't think the rejection is that an uncommon thing to be worthy of mentioning in the blurb. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there were widespread reports by third parties (e.g. EU monitors) of irregularities, those would be worth mentioning. But that may not be the case here.Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to our posting of Putin's "reelection" last year, I suggested that show election should not be posted as they are not inherently newsworthy. I was met with near universal consensus that it is not for us to weigh in on the legitimacy of elections. Fair enough, but that must hold here, too. We should not suggest Buhari's victory is tainted while refraining from a similar comment for show elections. ghost 15:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the blurb as is.Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I included the "...and the oppositionist Atiku Abubakar rejects the results." because I saw it in some important newspapers. But I'm not an expert in Nigerian politics, so I accept any other blub suggested. No problem for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Photo. w umbolo   ^^^  10:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Can we please take down the photo of the convicted child molester Pell and replace it with the President of Nigeria? -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Taplejung helicopter crash

 * Oppose the RD is sufficient, should it be good enough to be posted. This is a trivial story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. -Zanhe (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Rabindra Prasad Adhikari

 * Support, but article needs to be expanded.Bless sins (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wang Yening

 * Support - Article seems fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Chicago mayoral election

 * Weak support The fact that Chicago will be the largest city to have an African-American female mayor is historical and long overdue, I am not sure if it's globally newsworthy. Article in good shape though. Perhaps it will become more newsworthy once a mayor is elected on April 2. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unless this was something unique, we rarely post local election results. --M asem (t) 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have the regulars become that braindead? The "something unique" is right there at the beginning of the blurb.  What I would have a problem with is the use of "first round".  It appears that this IS the election and that you're comparing the difference between a general and runoff election to something like a primary and general election, and they're not comparable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Changed blurb from "USA's third-largest city will have its first black woman mayor after Lori Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle claim victory in first round of the 2019 Chicago mayoral election." to reflect suggestions and based on Mayor of Los Angeles and Mayor of New York. Dotdh15 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't post things that might happen generally. And as this is local politics, we don't generally post that either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "might", it's certain; two candidates advanced to the runoff and they're both black women. Davey2116 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they may both die before the runoff. Or withdraw.  Or be found guilty of some crime.  It's simple, nominate it when it happens.  But even then it's local politics, meaningless to many. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Significant, and article is good. But if we want to wait until the final winner is determined on April 2, I'm fine with that, too. Davey2116 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the election is finished, then we can evaluate article quality and news coverage. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local politics story, lacking in significance. A bit of perspective is needed here - it is incredibly unlikely that a similar story would be published if this "news" took place in any other country that has a majority white population. This "news" doesn't become any more special just because it happened in the US. Chrisclear (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like the George Pell story, this is significant but too incremental. If I support this, I am bound to support when it happens in LA, then NY. We've now a had a black female SOS, and there is a very decent chance we have a president in two years. Fortunately, the time has passed for this. ghost 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's an election for a position that's not of great significance in a single city in a single country in the whole wide world. The significance is race- and gender-based too, which is of dubious value as well. It's just not of international interest. Banedon (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local politics, very local story. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Balakot airstrike

 * Support based on the significance of the event. The story is still developing. The article needs expansion with additional information before posting. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb V: Indian military aircrafts dropped bombs in Balakot, Pakistan.
 * Proposed most neutral altblurb5. It is a claim which both nations agree upon without any dispute. Voice your opinion.-Nizil (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sherenk1, the problem with Blurb2 is that it is factually incorrect, they are "Pakistani" militants. Jaish-e-Mohammed consists primarily of Pakistani citizens and not Kashmiris as it is being claimed in the blurb2.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DBigXray This is the wording used in BBC news article.Sherenk1 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I support it in principle as it seems to be an important diplomatic event for that region. The article is small, but for sure it'll be improved in a short time. Like everything that involves the relations between India and Pakistan, it's a controversial matter, so I suggest we be very careful with the blurb and all the information on the article before publishing it.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind comments.SirEdimon, indeed since it is a controversial matter, the blurb I proposed is based on news that is confirmed by both Indian and Pakistani official sources. Even Pakistani ISI Spox has confirmed that Balakote was bombed by Indian jets. Source: Dawn (a Pakistani Newspaper that kowtows official narrative) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood it. I did not specifically criticize your blurb. I spoke in a general way, as this matter is very contentious, I think, in a general way, we should be prudent to avoid issues. This is what I meant.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I clarified just in case someone else has this thought. Regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as usual, the article needs a copy edit. "pre-emptive" is a marketing term, added alt-blurb 3. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with your blurb is that it is denied by Pakistan, who insists that the raid hit no militant at all. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "India conducts airstrikes targeting the militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed in Balakot, Pakistan." 159.53.110.142 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "suspected" --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and we can hardly have a blurb that says "India pretends to launch an airstrike...", etc., whatever the BBC say; we'd be laughing stocks! ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, alt blurb 3 looks OK to me. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but none of the blurbs seem okay. I don't agree that the militants targeted were Kashmiri militants. The territory where the strikes allegedly happened is undisputed Pakistani territory (India does not claim this land) called Khyber Pakhtunwala. The people residing there may not be Kashmiris. Alt blurb 3 is okay for me if you remove "Kashmiri". Breakfastisready (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Breakfastisready I added blurb4 based on your feedback. Even  I support the same. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait – Potentially significant, but no reliable sources provide NPOV info on results. India says hundreds killed, Pakistan says none. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but reliable sources reliably report India claiming 100's and Pakistan claiming 0. No issue here. WP:VNT applies --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but just repeating opposite, mutually exclusive claims doesn't inform readers very well. This incident could be just a footnote or a new chapter, depending on what actually happened on the ground. Sca (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The airstrike happened, we can inform readers of that, and inform them about the conflicting reports of casualties from the involved parties. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Major development in Asia with huge implications in India-Pakistani relations. Article is good and this is in the news right now. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb IV or V. India's unverified claims who was targeted should not be in the blurb. Regards So  Why  17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – India has claimed that Pakistan retaliated with heavy shelling along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. I think this should also be added. (NDTV news article) --ASF23 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, this remains a developing story. Wait. Sca (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Bringing article up to ITN standards. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very cool ideogram. Sca (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Indian General Elections will take place in April. These airstrikes are just an attempt by the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be seen as a strong leader. These won't have any lasting impact. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true, (it just seems to be your opinion at the moment) the motivation of the attack is not relevant as to whether it merits posting to ITN. If anything, attacking another country for political purposes at home is more of a reason to post it, not less. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See this: "This Is Called 56-Inch Chest": BJP Leader Praises PM Over Balakot Strike. Operations like these are used by the PM to project that he is astrong leader. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Following articles also say this: 1 2 3 4 --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See this CNN article: Why being seen as tough on Pakistan helps India's Modi --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which only proves that the attack is significantly in the news, and those reading about it in the news might find it helpful to easily locate the Wikipedia article about it. These are reasons to post it, not keep it off. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have withdrawn Oppose vote. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on both quality and significance. This is a really good article! It just doesn't have any photo. I'm not sure which blurb is the best. w umbolo   ^^^  23:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as an international incident that's clearly newsworthy. Favour a combination of alt blurb & alt 3: both say what happened, and why India are doing it. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting ALT4. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Muboshgu. Can someone give the credits. Regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Needs updating, as Pakistan says two Indian warplanes downed, two pilots captured., , . This topic really belongs in Ongoing (see nom. above). – Sca (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) George Pell

 * Comment: Significance needs to be assessed with the knowledge that Pell was convicted on 11 December and our article stated this soon after (th e blurb should be refactored to be clear on this). It is only making the press today because the Australian gagging order has been lifted.  Some foreign press such as the Washington Post reported it at the time - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support. (If article us up to scratch). This is the major story about this at the moment, not the pope's summit which shouldn't even have been posted. The Pell conviction is front page news in the UK, France, US etc. and is of general news worthiness for ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support posting the conviction of such a high ranking church official. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the staleness? If WaPo had it in December, surely the word got back to the Aussies, no? ghost 12:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The news clearly indicates that this decision hasn't been publicly release until today because of a potential parallel legal case, which has been dropped due to lack of evidence. We have no need to worry about "staleness".  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is not stale; it is an unusual case of timing. --M asem (t) 14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support vitally important newsworthy quality story. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Support in terms of significance, but it really should link to a separate article on Pell's trial and conviction. The target biographical article, in its first sentence, identifies him as "an Australian prelate ... and the Church's most senior official to be convicted of a sexual offence." Normal bio articles don't usually spotlight the subject's most egregious misdeed right off the bat. Apropos BLP, note that Pell says he plans to appeal. And more than one source is mandatory. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this OR the Popes summit, not both. At some point we need to stop reporting every minor development in the internal scandals of a private members organization. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination should be considered on its own. At times it's been a fairly high-profile story in the English-speaking world. Sca (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose That's a fine argument at ITNC, but we should still consider the risk of giving undue weight on the main page to clergy rape stories when a) the summit was a nothing-burger and b) the conviction of Pell was widely reported months ago. It's an accepted fact the clergy at all levels were engaged in this behavior. Many have been convicted. It seems the argument for posting today is a) this is the official announcement of the conviction and b) this guy is a cardinal. This is perverted logic; the fact that he's a cardinal has no impact on his ability to commit crimes and be convicted of them. ghost 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This user does not reply to users who don't exist. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ghosts are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Were people, you mean. Sca (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But do Scas exist, and, if so, what are they? (Admittedly I'm also not too sure about the existence and nature of tlhslobusses either, but then consistency is reportedly the hobgoblin of little minds) Tlhslobus (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's fair to call it "widely reported months ago" when it was not reported in Australia, Pell's home country, at all until yesterday. -dmmaus (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Australia has the internet. It may not have been reported in the MSM due to the gag rule, but even the great firewall of China could not have prevented this info from reaching anyone who cared. Separately, I'm striking my opposition in light of the fact that posting this would bump the pope story, thus greatly mitigating UNDUE concerns.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Considering how rare it is that major members of the clergy are convicted of such crimes and the widespread reporting, this seems to be ITN worthy. I understand the problem with staleness but agree with my fellow editors above although the blurb needs to be rephrased to clarify that. Regards So  Why  17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. There are multiple CN tags that need to be resolved. Weak Support on significance. We already have the Vatican's summit posted (which I opposed). Posting two stories on what is realistically the same topic does look UNDUE. IMO this is by far the more relevant but I don't like having both up on ITN.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per LaserLegs - one or the other, but not both. I'm OK with merging this into the Vatican summit blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. This is notable, and is news worldwide. The article has several cn-tags though. Davey2116 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per . The cn tags have been fixed. This is definitely notable, and its posting will push the Vatican summit off ITN, so there won't be two blurbs about the same topic, a concern raised by some. -Zanhe (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Blurb may be OK, but why do we add a child molester's picture on the front page?--Joseph (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because he's in the news? We have criminals' pictures on the main page regularly, in all the different sections, if an article about them is in the appropriate slot. &#8209; Iridescent 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) School strike for climate

 * Oppose thanks for the nomination but if this just getting a one line in the table update every week, it's not appropriate for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I think that it won't get enough coverage to get into the ongoing events. Felicia (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with TRM,the article is rather thin, document individual marches with decent prose and we can discuss as as blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulo Nogueira Neto

 * Support - Article seems fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article has an unsourced section &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed that - sourced the list of publications. Dropped one from 1955 not found, added two more recent ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Beverley Owen

 * Weak Support It's a bit thin, but I believe it passes muster for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is small, but well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If she died on 21 Feb then this one is stale unfortunately. What are the rules regarding late reports? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MSGJ we have a very recent example of the Argentina footballer Emiliano Sala. His RD was posted after confirmed reports were published. I think it is fair to consider the date of the reports of death to decide stale or not. There is no way anyone can nominate an RD unless death is reported in media. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted as last item, there's nothing that will bump her for a while. Stephen 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde

 * Support as nominator. Have added references, hopefully sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article and adequately sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Although since it's RD only, that's not necessary. But influential in his field for sure. (Nice work, Zwerg.) Sca (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Hollis

 * Support. Fully referenced article so far as I can see.  Exact date and cause of death have not yet been reported in any reliable sources, though the fact of his death has been widely reported.  A very well-respected and much-loved musical figure.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently relevant, sufficiently referenced. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 147

 * Oppose Not particularly significant event or with broader political or technical ramifications: also the article needs improvement. At the moment, the lead says the perp was taken into custody while the body says (badly) that he was shot dead. Qu'est-ce qu'on pas ecrit...? ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless they demonstrate this was terrorism-related (presently they have asserted the man was mentally imbalanced), this is not a significant event. --M asem (t) 17:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Foiled with no casualties except for would-be perp. Not significant. Sca (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mac Wiseman

 * Support Short, but there's enough there for the main page. Scrupulously referenced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose In its present state, insufficient coverage of the subject's musical career to merit RD posting.  Spencer T• C 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Spencer thanks for your kind feedback, I have now expanded the Music career. While it is far from GA I believe the article now deserves the ITN RD slot. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion. I think more could be added regarding the subject's career, but it meets minimum standards, so I will weak support. Best,  Spencer T• C 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lothar Zenetti

 * Support Short, but there's enough there for the main page. Scrupulously referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Scott (dancer)

 * Support The organization, with every paragraph getting its own header, is a bit whack, but I won't hold up the nom over that. Everything is referenced, the article covers the breadth of her life.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 91st Academy Awards

 * Comment and support. All the awards are in now.  References seem adequate for a recently made article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support updated and ready IMO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Presenters need a reference. Also, we usually also mention which movie got the most awards if it is not the best picture winner. --Tone 08:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As of now, the entire presenters list has 7 distinct references. I'm not sure we need an 8th.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I can't find anything wrong. Looks good to go.  Favor alt2, second choice alt1.  Alt2 is, IIRC, how we have usually formatted these sorts of postings in the past, but if people prefer alt1, it's OK also.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer alt1. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Is alt2 even gramatical? I can't parse it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you take out "with four" it is much better &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the original blurb. Including the tally winner is just a habit, not an obligation. IMO, it looks odd when the number is so small. ghost 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A concern of mine is that 4 awards are not great. Unless those four locked up Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress (a sort of trifecta), 4 is a relatively small number. --M asem (t) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll mention Bohemian Rhapsody since it at least got the Best Actor of the big ones, also giving the opportunity to use a picture of Rami Malek. Feel free to change. --Tone 16:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antoine Gizenga

 * Comment He was the DRC's Deputy Prime Minister in 1960 under Patrice Lumumba, led a breakaway government from 1960 until 1961, and was Prime Minister of the DRC from 2006 until 2008. One of the Congo's more famous politicians, and one of the last of his generation to die. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks okay &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Vatican sexual abuse summit

 * Support posting. You've done a good job with the article &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We typically post summits when they result in something significant, which does not seem to be the case here. Stephen 23:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support – It certainly has gotten a lot of coverage, and Francis's statement comparing sexual abuse of children in the Church to pagan child-sacrifice rites does seem noteworthy. Sca (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the summit is unprecedented and tries to address a serious issue that's widely reported and has global impact. Article quality is good. -Zanhe (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. The summit has been criticized as long on rhetoric but short on substance. Which criticism does not appear to have gotten much attention in the article. Also there have been some very public complaints to the effect that certain topics were off limits at the meeting including the abuse of seminarians and the question of the prevalence of homosexuality within the clergy. Agan, I'm not seeing much discussion of this within the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per . Seems kind of like a big deal. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as sources say, "short on details". Also posting this would run afoul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Major event in the history of the largest Christian denomination.  Received massive international news coverage.  Perceived inadequacies in the results, the day after its conclusion, also run afoul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm on the fence on significance, but quality more than compensates for that. I don't follow the WP:RGW argument. If we were posting clergy molestation stories back in the 80s, yeah, that would be RGW because we'd be drawing attention to that which was otherwise being kept quiet or denied. ghost 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Prominently covered by news source, and Wikipedia has a decent article to highlight. Checks all the right boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Conditionally. There are two cn templates in the article that need to be referenced.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I added an infobox with the summit's logo since no photo has been added yet, hope that helps. Nice4What (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I've been seeing this in the news a lot recently. I added refs for those two cns. Ahiijny (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this but I feel the blurb needs a bit more to explain what happened or will happen. I know the next step appears to be the Vatican writing out new policies and processes for dealing with the issues around the matters. Just saying a summit was held gives no context. --M asem (t) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - very much in the news and quality is up to par --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have commented so will not post, but I have marked it as ready &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike the Pell story (see above), unless there is something I'm missing, this doesn't seem like a world changing story. Not sure what the significance is. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li Xueqin

 * Support. Looks fine to me. -- Ununseti (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Douglas

 * Support Looks OK to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Thought I'd stick my beak in, and the article could turn out to be a cracker.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Not just pining for the fjords, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: the notability of this article has now been challenged. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion rationale is as follows: "This is a parrot that had one film role. Not at all notable. Most actors/actresses who have had only one film role usually have their wikipedia pages deleted as there isn't enough merit to this 'celebrity' status. Same should apply to animal actors." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's no longer on the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So perhaps this entry should state: "(Pulled)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it was pulled. I think it left the MP because new RDs took its place.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. This happens sometimes when there's a lot of RDs on one particular day. There's got to be a DYK here though, surely? Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't pulled. It moved off the end of the template like all postings do, it just moved really really fast (see this edit). --DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and just put it back with this edit --DannyS712 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that we've moved to 6 RDs if they fit on 2 lines, I've put him back. Stephen 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, too confused to keep track any more. The PROD has now been removed anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC) .... let's hope it doesn't get "nailed to its perch."
 * Pretty flighty RD stint. Maybe that means he's not still dead? A winged vampire? Sca (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Assam alcohol poisonings

 * Oppose (the current revision is Special:PermanentLink/884724148) - its 1 sentence total --DannyS712 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Obviously the current "article" does not qualify. If it were to be developed into a genuine article, I'm not sure this all-too-common occurrence would qualify for ITN, despite the number of deaths. Sca (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article is a micro-stub. I am neutral for now on the merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not yet convinced on the significance of this event. Such poisonings are not uncommon in India; we have articles on nine in the past decade alone and this incident is currently only the fourth most deadly - Dumelow (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along the same lines. So why do they keep drinking it? Because they can't afford the proper alcoholic beverages? I'd rather quit drinking alcohol then. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're telling us you'd rather be alive than dead? Sca (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Next to nothing at target article. I've retitled it, though, so switched the title here. May as well vote while I'm editing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the article has been improved a lot since its nomination. A big tragedy with a huge loss of life (133 so far). The ITN criteria has been met. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is still looking rather bare. One section is completely empty &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article isn't much more than a stub and news-wise the story's getting stale. Sca (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is still quite weak. It does not need to be a GA but taking 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning as an example, the article should have a brief mention of the causes. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still rather short and this isn’t really a rare occurrence, sadly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One of the biggest alcohol poisonings in India. More than 150 people died and 300 hospitalised. The article, though needs improvement but contain enough information of the incident. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stanley Donen

 * Provisional support - director and producer of one of my favourite films, Bedazzled ("You fill me with inertia") . Although a GA there are a few issues with unsourced claims, I've tagged those pending a fix. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article text seems reasonably referenced. The filmography, as is often the case, is not referenced at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – All his films are referenced in the body. There is no need for citations again. We just need to take care of the 6 citations needed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support . The filmography is also fully sourced in a separate article. I'd be happy to look over the other refs.--Phibesfan (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All citations accounted for. User:Yorkshiresky did some great work and hopefully will vote. I think some of the unreferenced info was added after it became a GA.--Phibesfan (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)--Phibesfan (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but also believe that it should be a main headline instead of just Recent Deaths.--Phibesfan (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)--Phibesfan (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I believe all the outstanding issues have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on quality; no comment on notability/blurb. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * in RD. Blurb will need more explicit consensus for that &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This peppering citations into filmography list is imho a bit nonsensical. Did you actually discuss/check that with WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, other film related projects pages and with peoples writing articles in that area. To my knowledge filmography entries only need to have citations in cases were a verification might be difficult. That means in particular cases which are not listed in various film databases and/or film that are hard to accees. Also note each filmography entry is already a primary source for itself of sorts and this only fails for films which are lost. So in particular adding citations in Donen filmography seems completely unnecessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela

 * Weak oppose this is already in Ongoing, isn't it? Also, it seems to have dropped off international news already. Banedon (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Morgan Woodward

 * Posted Stephen 21:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Sudanese protests (2018–19)

 * Sounds like this might be an Ongoing posting, if updated, I'm not sure. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Better suited for Ongoing, and it needs some copyediting. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support on significance, but the narrative needs a lot of work. We should feel no need to rush to post; this story is not going stale. Ongoing does seem like the best option. ghost 02:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as one of the lead authors (weirdly). The central and regional governments were just dissolved.  That's rather big news.  Compare the monthly views to Yellow Vest Movement which did not lead to government dissolutions (only to one mayor being sent off to the Conseil Constitutionnel). Help improving the article would be appreciated. ^^  SashiRolls t ·  c 14:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now that this is an ongoing nom, it fulfills the criteria. Article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Clark James Gable

 * Oppose for now - Stub. Needs improvement before being posted.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Brody Stevens

 * Oppose for now - Article has several ref issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Biodiversity loss

 * Support - Big news of major human interest. Can't ignore it. (WaltCip, logged out) --128.227.165.102 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not because the issue is not important but this is a speculative report, stating that if we don't stop decline in biodiversity we may see issues related to food supplies. The UN like most of their forward-looking reports wants countries to take steps now to prevent a possibility. --M asem (t) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Masem.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. Sca (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with alternative blurb. Like most risk management reports, the FAO report is a meta-review of the "role and importance" (why do we need it), "drivers of change" (why is it changing), "status and trends" (how much of it and which direction that's going), "state of use" (what are we doing with it), "state of categorization" (how are we collecting data), "state of conversation" (what are we doing about it), "enabling frameworks" (what is helping us do something about it) and "needs and challenges" (what do we need to do). To call the report speculative is to only read Chapter 9 ("needs and challenges"). There's a huge amount of quantitative data we can report on here without touching that "may" statement (even if that is supported by extensive scientific evidence). TheDragonFire (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is so significant, perhaps the main FAO article needs to be updated. w umbolo   ^^^  13:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Precedent This is the first assessment report on biodiversity by the FAO but the similar IPCC Fifth Assessment Report was posted at ITN in 2013. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There, for the IPCC, there was much more coverage of te report, and while this biodiversity report is being covered, its far from the headlines compared to the IPCC. --M asem (t) 16:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose doesn't seem like a big deal, e.g. from the quoted source, "The Gambia says that large losses of wild foods have forced communities to turn to industrially processed foods to supplement their diets". Okay, and is that bad? What's wrong with industrially processed food anyway? Banedon (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Four new letters in DNA alphabet

 * Oppose Cool concept, but so theorhetical as to what it could mean. If it were the discovery of four new naturally occurring base pairs, that might more significant, but this seems far too novel to have any real application now. --M asem (t) 06:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would discovery of new naturally occurring base pairs be more significant? Banedon (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe The article needs work to explain what's new rather than just speculation. And the blurb needs work because the concept is four new letters rather than four new alphabets .  The potential is enormous though.  I suppose that evolution already tried and rejected this way of doing things but introducing alien DNA into our environment could literally change life as we know it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has no context at all, completely "meh?" moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft approve Scientific research and success are notable, this certainly is interesting. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to 99.9995% of our readers, it's intractable. Could you suggest a blurb which is meaningful and contextual to the masses?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Scientists manufacture DNA with 8 bases."? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Rather obscure; significance unclear. Sca (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Creating artificial nucleobases and doubling the number of DNA letters is absolutely revolutionary. Nobody can tell what the long-term implications will be (this could lead to things we can't even imagine), but it'll surely be more significant than 100% of the sports tournaments we regularly feature on ITN. The research is published in Science so it's solid, and the article is good quality, kudos to . -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes - *entirely* agree with comments above supporting (or approving) this proposed candidate for ITN - another possible blurb (or equivalent) may be as follows: "Scientists create viable DNA, using four additional new bases, greatly expanding the types of life forms that may exist in the universe." - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't know if it's "viable". Yes, it forms a double helix but they haven't shown anything like replicability, and decoding to actual proteins. Also "may exist" is far too speculative. Basically, this is far too basic research at the current state for the ITN; if they demonstrated a viable single cell organism that actually used the 8-base DNA, then that might be worth talking about. --M asem (t) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the researchers adapted an enzyme ("T7 polymerase") to produce unnatural "Hachimoji genes", which, in turn, were used to produce unnatural "Hachimoji RNA", and later, "Hachimoji proteins". [and related refs at "Hachimoji DNA"?] - afaik - this is, in itself, at least a form of "viable DNA" I would think - although there may be greater degrees/levels of "viability" as noted of course - in addition - expanding the usual genetic code from 4 natural bases to 8 bases suggest that the usual 4 natural bases (A,C,G,T) are not unique to producing a successful molecular genetic system - and, as a result, opens up the possibility of life existing in the universe of a kind not as we know it - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support -- Added an alternate blub. There is no need to dumb it down. Readers can go to the links and learn more. We have a Featured Article on DNA and an OK article on Nucleobase. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb 2. I've got no idea what this is, but it sounds cool so let's post it Openlydialectic (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose using DNA for data storage is over-hyped vaporware, and this is still just a lab demonstration. I'm not convinced it is as important as its proponents think it is. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with some preference for the original blurb but the alt blurbs are also OK. This is not about storing data, but about scientists creating, for the first time ever, four new basic blocks of life. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting story, in the news, and article looks okay. Support &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank for that! I just learned= something new! :) &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The good news is, we got Mr. Iconic's dark glasses out of the ITN box. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hilde Zadek

 * Support - Article quality looks good. Nice work. -Zanhe (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on quality, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: E Dongchen

 * Support on quality; referenced enough --DannyS712 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - refs look good.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Cafardo

 * Support. Don't see any pressing issues. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support short but okay; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Are these really the types of sources we want to use on a BLP?--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are okay... if you disagree, feel free to remove the "ready' tag --DannyS712 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked all three out, here's my analysis: The first is the website of the Whitman Times, from Whitman, Massachusetts, a legitimate local newspaper. It's a small circulation local paper, but I have no reason to doubt that it is a legit newspaper.  It seems perfectly reliable.  The second is his CV from an organization he worked for; it would not be independent for the purpose of determining notability, but otherwise I have no reason to doubt its reliability (reliable sources and independent sources are different things; sources that are not independent are fine so long as they are reliable, and are not being used to justify inclusion per WP:N).  The third source is borderline, but 1) the writer does list his own sources, so that helps and 2) It isn't being used to provide a source for contentious information.  I think its OK, it would be better if it were supplemented with a higher quality source, but it's not enough to get bent out of shape over.  Based on my analysis, I am not worried about any of the three sources as worth holding this off the main page.
 * Support Article is short, but of sufficient quality and length. Full referenced.  Looks fine to me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , User:Jayron32 Since ITN RDs are extremely time sensitive, I went ahead and replaced with ESPN,  with Bostonglobe and  with NESN + Bostonglobe, Coffeeandcrumbs please check if you can support the nomination now. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jayron32 I am neutral about these sources we can continue the discussion about the refs on the talk page of the article. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Thank you. Please fix the broken reference with missing closing tag. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Green check.svg<SPAN STYLE="display:none">Y</SPAN> fixed by DannyS712 and me.  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) SpaceIL Launches aboard SpaceX Falcon9 Rocket

 * Leaning on oppose until either the lander successfully lands on the moon (in 2.5 months) or there's some incident. Falcon 9 has launched before with payload so that launch is nothing really new. --M asem (t) 02:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * wait textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. Post it when it lands Openlydialectic (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case the launch already has the Beresheet module in Earth orbit, which is not just a regular payload, it had some people worried it wasn't going to make it. Besides, even if it was just a regular launch, it is newsworthy for the launch itself, it's the first commercial launch to the moon, make it or not, it's one for the books. Again, those saying wait or oppose are missing the point, the launch itself is newsworthy, regardless if it makes it to the moon or not. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait Israel hasn't launched a rocket, they've paid SpaceX to launch their probe which will potentially land on the moon. The Google Prize has ended, so not sure why that would be mentioned.  The launch is routine, landing on the moon is when this should be nominated. Stephen 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Going to the moon is not routine, so that's why it's newsworthy, itself, regardless if it actually makes it to the moon. I mentioned the Google Prize because I think it's an interesting aspect to it that people might find interesting. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait prefer wait too per above. Whether or not it successfully lands, it'll be news and we can post it then. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – 'til it lands. Sca (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Jussie Smollett

 * Oppose for two reasons. (1) We usually post convictions or sentencing, not charges filed. (2) This is a case that has drawn attention, but is really just about him and his career, no broader implications for anyone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. --M asem (t) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is of mild interest to probably another section of the main page but is not something I would expect to see covered in an almanac of the year's most newsworthy or notable stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, suggest snow close. Sca (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while notable since Smollett orchestrated his attack, and it now appears his racist letter he received a while back, it's not worthy enough for inclusion for a worldwide encyclopedia. Although, to an extent, I can see little support for inclusion for lots of media celebrities rush to judgement and support, and how they blamed certain people for this incident, which might be noteworthy in itself. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Tork

 * Oppose for now "A few citation verifications (unrelated to the death) pending" is somewhat understating the extent of the problems in an article in which 16 out of 35 paragraphs lack a single citation - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on (several people are) over 8 new citations added today, some unsourced info removed. — xaosflux  Talk 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on rereading my comment it came across a bit pessimistic and confrontational, apologies. Best of luck improving the article. One thing I like about the RD process is that it is quite effective at instigating improvements to a wide variety of biography articles.  If its ready in time give me a ping and I'll drop by to switch to support - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose with regret. Looks like some chopping out needs doing, or forking, as this seems unlikely to be ready in a timely fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Trying - could use a few more hands, but may not make the fast RD cycle (at work now, so going a bit slow). — xaosflux  Talk 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article is improved although citations needed. The songs written section is mostly unreferenced and could perhaps be omitted. Unlike Paul McCartney, Peter Tork was not known for his song writing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret I’ve held out for as long as I could but the article is just not up to scratch, despite improvements. I think it’s a real shame that some editors are fixated on high-fiving each other for reverting vandalism and templating anything that moves, while articles like this are left to rot :-( <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (and others) thanks for the notes, don't have time to clear this up without leaving huge sections on the chopping room floor. Thanks for everyone who has helped improve the article, I'd rather see it continue to get better over time then to canalize it just for a RD spot. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) PewDiePie vs T-Series
Strongest possible support Highly important event, possibly the most important in the XXI century so far. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose Who the hell cares who has the most subscriptions on YouTube? Before I clicked the link, I thought it was referring to a lawsuit with implications on Internet freedoms or somesuch. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm struggling to see any real-world implications for this event. If there are any it can be nominated for a blurb when they happen. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Dhaka fire

 * Comment - I'll promptly support it when it's ready to go. It seems a very significant event with a big death toll.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a few hours since the last significant edit and I'm half-expecting to give it a little prod. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  – pending article development. Alt1 offered per AP's 81 death toll, which may change (note present tense). Sca (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on merits. It appears that the article is being quickly developed. I recommend modifying the language of the altblurb; no need to use personification ("raging fire") for emphasis. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem – must admit the journalistic phrase "raging fire" is a cliché, and "fast-moving" would be fine. Note that around 16:30 the AP reduced its "at least" toll to 67. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - and ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Too short at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I went ahead and deleted the only unsourced claim in the article, and the quality of the article has been significantly improved since the last vote. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Oppose Come on; the first section opens with "eventually." Plus, take out the "thoughts and prayers" and you could fit the whole article on a cocktail napkin. ghost 18:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to agree with GCG here. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Significant, but article hasn't been sufficiently fleshed out over the last day and a half. More than a third of the text is devoted to "Reactions," which add no information. Sca (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, three full-fledged sourced sections by now, significance undisputable. Brandmeistertalk  10:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat better, but reactions and "Financial assistance" still make up half the article. Plus, in news terms it's getting stale (like houseguests and fish). Sca (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been expanded, decent enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now sufficiently expanded. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Francisco Mañosa

 * Oppose will look again once every "work" is referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vinny Vella

 * Support on quality; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks DannyS712, I hope an admin comes along and posts this soon or else it will be stale. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreferenced films.  Stephen 06:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Stephen an IP had added unreferenced films after the nomination. I have fixed the filmography again. Please check if you can support this nomination now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see any issues stopping an RD post.BabbaQ (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fred Foster

 * Oppose brief article but lacking refs in the main. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ekkehard Wlaschiha

 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Ongoing) Battle of Baghuz Fawqani

 * Support This is very significant and the article appears to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, the last news I heard said it's on the verge of defeat. The situation will probably clarify within a day or two. Brandmeistertalk  09:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article on it's own doesn't explain it's significance vs any other battle in the ongoing civil war. I'm concerned about claiming "the defeat of ISIL" because their principal opponent declares it such. ISIL will be taking credit for suicide bombings for the next 20 years. From a quality standpoint, there are some large paragraphs with a single source, and the prose which is there is filled with the usual irrelevant anecdotal commentary like "The civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them". We're supposed to be reporting on the "final defeat of ISIL in Syria" but the article is highlighting 18 non-Syrians fleeing? Come on. The problem with WP:RECENTism is that the article gets fluffed up with this sort of reliably sourced but ultimately unverified factoids. When the Syrian civil war ends and either the SDF or Assad surrenders and admits defeat, then that's a post. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing and promote to blurb if/when the battle concludes. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing - the battle has not yet ended, but per above, if it concludes with the Islamic State losing the last of its Syrian territory, that's certainly noteworthy enough for a blurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Reposted and support for Ongoing - BBC reports that civilians have evacuated and remaining militants have surrendered, complete capture is imminent. I certainly recommend posting it to "Ongoing" and later as a blurb once the battle has concluded. (I also tweaked blurb to cover add the UK, which I initially omitted; I've listed the countries in that specific order as it is US and France on the front lines, with air support from the UK. Wouldn't be opposed to replacing them with CJTF-OIR though most countries in the coalition aren't participating in this final battle, so I feel it'd be a little less accurate.) Nice4What (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment proposed alt-blurb 2 which doesn't pretend that ISIL will just pack up and go home. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They have a home? Sca (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel that the defeat of ISIL territorially here is what makes this specific battle significant, alt blurb II just seems like another battle going on in Syria. Nice4What (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're free to leave a !vote to that effect. I would appreciate it if you'd not comment on my remarks directly, except if seeking clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would appreciate it if you'd not comment on my remarks directly"???
 * lol.
 * Oppose Alt Blurb II for reasons states above ... This is how you wanted it formatted, yea? Nice4What (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – What happened to the caveats "so-called" or "self-proclaimed" – ?? – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I am not opposed to including these caveats, these caveats are primarily useful for proto-states, and per the lead of the ISIL article, it is a former (rather than current) proto-state. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about: an evanescent self-proclaimed theocracy? Sca (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment ISIL once commanded vast tracts, and the fact that it no longer does is very significant. But my feeling is that there is a certain whac-a-mole effect in place on the "last hold out." ISIL must have soldiers in other parts of Syria, right? And they could pop-up and take over a town in hours and then (technically) ISIL has territorial control again. Within this context, ISIL has long since lost all it's territory. ghost 13:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is whacamole made from avocados? – Sca (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to ongoing. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Bramble Cay melomys

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is no longer a stub. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Has the IUCN formally declared it to be extinct? That's what the infobox appears to be claiming.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It has: citation to IUCN added. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Then one would imagine the blurb should reflect that, rather than just a recommendation of the Aussie government. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The IUCN declared this extinct some years ago. It hit the news then, but we didn't post it. It's hit the news again because of the Australian government statement (which in some ways is bigger, because it actually affects policy, whereas the IUCN assessment is widely used but not legally meaningful), and so I think we should take the opportunity to post it. That's why I didn't propose the alt blurb you have now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the guardian is calling it the "first mammal species wiped out by human-induced climate change". Article is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that fact should somehow be factored into the blurb to give it context as loads of animals go extinct for various reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Added altblurb2. Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The IUCN declared this species extinct in 2015/16. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  20:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it is in the news again because of the Australian government's action, and we didn't post it when the IUCN changed its categorization. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Above, you said it has legal ramifications. What exactly? Does it affect any other nations? I could be convinced to change my mind if there is some regional and international consequences to this announcement. Otherwise, if this only affects Australians, there is nothing to see here.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Australian government designation is what affects protection for the species, including land regulations in its habitat: which, arguably, is limited in its impact. However, that doesn't change my basic point; this is a documented extinction that is very much in the news globally right now, so we should post it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not even clear from news reports (which also confirm that Queensland state government confirmed the extinction way back in 2016) what, if any, the ramifications are. The article contains nothing related to what impact this will have on legislation.  The BBC also confirmed that "Australia has one of the world's highest rates of animal extinction" so I guess there are plenty more such stories round the corner.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith, but it appears that this news broke several years ago. Had this not been the case, I would have been willing to support on its merits. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Drop in the ocean This creature is a variety of rat that lived on a tiny island -- the size of a large garden/small farm.  It has been flooded to extinction but there are still lots of close relatives in the region.  This is quite insignificant compared to the global scale of biodiversity loss as reported by the UN today.   See the nomination above. Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that this is significant. Species going extinct is notable in my own view. Impacts the whole ecosystem. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks good to me and it's in the news now. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose On the face of it, I find this notable. But when you dig down...it's "likely" extinct and "likely" caused by habitat loss...and it started from such a precarious situation a stiff breeze would have wiped them out. I know we shouldn't give credence to deniers, but it's seem difficult to phrase a blurb that is both accurate and substantial. ghost 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable story. Davey2116 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I smell a rat in this 'news.' – Sca (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and post already. Good refs. Special reading about sad subject.BabbaQ (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We posted Baiji, also a mammal, on the Main Page shortly after its extinction was declared. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:40F7:521D:1A5C:D4D8 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose overhyped over the extinction of a single species that is largely unknown to most of the world. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:655B:B3F6:9666:8265 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Namvar Singh

 * Support Seems decent enough. I found nothing to object to that is not fixable with some light copy editing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but Ok enough. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question is it "minimally comprehensive"? "Literary works" says he wrote 12, lists three. There is a mention of his communist party involvement getting him fired, but no details about that period in his life. I'm not opposing, just asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs, I was able to find RS mentioning these 3 books as his popular works. If me or someone else finds more referenced books, we can certainly add along with the refs. Regrading his communist activities, the reliable sources I found thus far, only mention it as such, hence it is mentioned as was sourced. ITN RDs need strict BLP compliance before being promoted to the Main page.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above comments Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vanamonde, can someone give the credits? Regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, FTR. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Newcombe

 * Aw man. I can work on this one too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be ready to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No issues that I can see. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see issues either.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) RD: Karl Lagerfeld

 * Support blurb He was a major figure in the fashion world, which makes him also qualify for a blurb. By the way, this is a breaking news in most media at the moment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Icon in the fashion industry, should be posted to RD but a blurb could be sufficient knowing how important he was. Nice4What (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd proposed something of the lines "German fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, best known for his creative work at Chanel, passes away at age 85." Nice4What (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Use dies not passes away - see MOS:EUP. O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll change the blurb. Nice4What (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, strongly Large sections of this article lack references. I don't care to opine on whether to blurb or not. But if we do, something should first be done about the WP:CSECTION. IMO, a separate section for controversies is inherently undue. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb not seeing the level of coverage I need for a blurb, if it's getting wall to wall coverage in a day with video of Merkel laying flowers at his casket I can reconsider. Oppose RD for now on quality. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems somewhat unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying you want to see a "video of Merkel laying flowers" makes it seem like you don't know much about Lagerfeld... he is one of the most recognizable icons of the fashion industry, not necessarily a German hero. Coverage is also everywhere     Nice4What (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked, genuinely shocked, that you were able to find links to articles talking about his death. Stunned even. That is not the same as widespread coverage. I stand by my oppose. Have a nice day. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Chill out 😂 The news of the death is definitely widespread, I don't know how you can't see that for yourself. Nice4What (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Icon (including iconic) has become one of the two most overused words in the English language – the other being clearly. – Sca (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Ostrabrama-altar.jpg
 * It seems the BBC have it wrong, clearly. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, and a host of others, including, alas, the AP. The good news is, Reuters and the Guardian resisted the rush to devalued language. Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Au contraire: both Reuters and Guardian regard him as a cultural and/or fashion "icon". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in headlinese, at least. Reuters: "creative genius," Guardian: "fashion designer." – Sca (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we all read past the headlines, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear someone taking my sarcasm seriously again. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you're in over your head. – Sca (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or at the very least RD. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article sourcing quality only. Would support a blurb here given. --M asem (t) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Consensus is that blurbs should be reserved for cases in which the death itself could be the topic of a full Wikipedia article. This is explained in WP:ITNRD, and I strongly suggest the nominator and all the pro-blurb notvoters here read it, and then withdraw their nomination and their notvotes. Furthermore, dying when super old is the opposite of what blurbs are for. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that a blurb needs its own article on the death, but I would say is that the blurb is needed when the death itself is the story. Being old and dying of being old does not require extra explanation in the way that a murder, suicide, or accident would.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He wasn't "super old". He was 85. He was still professionally active last October? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what you want, consensus says blurbs are for huge death events, not some old person dying. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We had a blurb for Aretha Franklin when she passed away. No separate article, no unusual death... so your point doesn't have a standing. Her death and Lagerfeld's are undeniably significant. Nice4What (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not "some old person dying". He's a very notable old person dying. His longevity has contributed to his notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles are about notable people. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite. Not just "some old people". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is patently untrue that consensus says this. Deaths of major transformative leaders in their fields may be posted as well. ghost 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality; referencing is a mess. Would prefer RD when it is cleaned up, as there's nothing particularly unusual about the manner of his death that needs explaining.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deaths don't have to be unusual to be posted. See Aretha Franklin. Nice4What (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why am I forced to repeat, in perpetuity and for all of time, every mistake I made in the past? Just because we didn't do the right thing in the past, doesn't mean we are forced to keep repeating that wrong thing over and over again every time it comes up.  Why would you suggest that we are forced, based  on doing something wrong in the past, that we now have to do the same wrong thing over and over?  That seems like an unusual rationale.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought the Franklin blurb was wholly deserved. Not wrong at all. Although I also think Lagerfeld's influence on popular culture was far less in comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to disagree on that. If all we have to say in a blurb is "So and so died" and that's it, then that's a waste of text space.  That's what RD is for.  It's a list of "so and so"s who died.  The fact that I liked someone, or found their life's work more interesting to me is not a reason why I think their death bears more attention.  ITN has only one purpose: To tell people about Wikipedia articles they should read.  That's it.  It's not an award that we give to some people because we find their life's work important enough to bestow a special honor on.  ITN exists only to say "Something happened recently.  Here's a Wikipedia article about it to learn more."  I repeat again: It is not an honor to get a space in ITN, and it is not a greater honor to get a blurb over an RD link.  They are exactly equivalent ways of linking to an article on the main page.  The only reason a blurb is needed is so people have context for why the link is there.  If the link is there because someone died, and all we have to say is: "they died", then RD is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If RD and blurb are "exactly equivalent ways of linking to an article on the main page", I'm really not sure what we're discussing here. But I don't see anyone proposing the blurb "Karl Lagerfeld has died." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The AltBlurb has his age, which is hardly relevent. The main blurb has his age and job description.  Having an age and a job description should not be the minimum requirements for a blurb; else every RD would have a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether someone gets a blurb and what's in the blurb are two separate questions. If all we're trying to do is get the reader to read the article it shouldn't matter. Certainly Chanel could be mentioned. The fact that he was German many readers may not even know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aretha? Seriously? You better think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.21.193 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, also Oppose RD until such time that there is at least one reference per paragraph. Still several unreferenced paragraphs at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, The New York Times calls him "The Soul of Fashion", "Designer Who Defined Luxury Fashion", "the most prolific designer of the 20th and 21st centuries", "the shape-shifter" and says "he achieved an unparalleled level of fame and created a new kind of designer".--Cyve (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Not convinced of Lagerfeld's broader significance, and expect coverage to fade soon; death at 85 of pancreatic cancer seems unremarkable. Support RD when ready. Sca (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb clearly a world transformative figure in his field. meets our normal definition. I know he won't get it though because fashion falls out of our editing demographics interest, unlike geeky comics in which Stan Lee was posted. Food for thought. I notice Lee had barely any opposes while it was a battle to get Aretha Franklin on and it'll be impossible to get any fashion figure on. . Such is life. GuzzyG (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree that the blurb is facing opposition because it's outside of most editor's interests. Truly felt like the support for a blurb would be a no brainer (after the article is updated a bit more). Nice4What (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you've commented at length on nearly every contributor who has opposed a blurb for this nomination, and now you're questioning our motives. Absent any hard guidelines, all considerations are valid, and mine is Thatcher/Mandela. I'd kindly ask that you strike your remarks above, as you do not know me, or anything about me, or what motivates my opinions. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've commented a lot since I proposed the blurb and think it should be posted. I feel when people make comments such as "not a transformative figure", "not seeing the level of coverage", and "not convinced of broader significance", it's clear that this topic is outside the scope of their personal interests. I will not strike my remarks... it seems you have more of a problem with what was said by User:GuzzyG than what I wrote. Nice4What (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb (RD is sufficient) and Oppose RD as the article has many missing references. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Not a transformative figure. Also I'm truly saddened by trivializing the work of Stan Lee to just "geeky comics". That would be akin to me saying Karl is just some "old white guy who makes overpriced clothes". (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just like you dismissing someone who the New York Times called "The Soul of Fashion", "Designer Who Defined Luxury Fashion", "the most prolific designer of the 20th and 21st centuries" as "not a transformative figure". Doesn't feel nice when editors talk about fields outside of their interest hey? I think you need to explain why the niche interest of comics (or are we going on best selling popular film?) has had more of an impact on human society then fashion itself. And how a young, white, computer specialist, western driven website would lean more towards instantly giving it's top honour for deaths to a comics writer but haggle over the "Queen of Soul" and completely reject a fashion designer. Not surprising in the least. GuzzyG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I don’t give a crap what other people’s opinions are on his level of popularity, the fact is this has been covered by the likes of CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and the BBC. His influence on fashion and pop culture at large is indelible whether people like him or not, or even notice it. This wasn’t some random German expatriate. He ran two multi-billion dollar luxury brands and is considered an icon or legend. People don’t know a damn thing about fashion know who he is. If the article needs fixing then be bold. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD & blurb Create a list of the three most transformative leaders in the world of fashion alive last week. Is he on it? Not even close. ghost 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. Trillfendi (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you calling the New York Times wrong in their assessment of him? What makes your opinion of his transformative status more reputable then the number one newspaper in fashion city? GuzzyG (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that before, but I will now; Vanessa Friedman's take was wildly out of sync with every other obit I read today. And until she choose to register her opinion here, it is worth nothing. ghost 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SO you admit your opinion is whimsical and when you get questioned you say things out of spite on something obviously false (read every other obit). No more needs to be said. GuzzyG (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this must be trolling. Who else than maybe Anna Wintour would be the top three? Lagerfeld was certainly not a nobody. As BBC had reported what model Claudia Schiffer wrote, "What Warhol was to art, he was to fashion; he is irreplaceable." Nice4What (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:NPA and do not accuse other editors of trolling. (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should've replied to the initial remark rather than my agreement. Nice4What (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb outside my realm of interest, but the coverage seems to indicate that he was significant enough to merit a blurb. At any rate, it would be nice if people would stop claiming that a death event itself must be significant in order for a death to receive a blurb. That is absolutely not how this works. Lepricavark (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support blurb once up to scratch. There is absolutely no doubt at all that Lagerfeld is considered transformative in the fashion industry, it seems to argue to the contrary is to personally disagree with just about every reliable source covering this news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per TRM above I know nothing about fashion, but the usual news (and specialist) sources available certainly agree that he was a leading figure and certainly hits the transformative threshold. And since I know nothing about fashion, I am going to go with what reliable sources indicate. And while there is going to be an aspect of 'bigging up' in any obituary, there are more than enough sources from his lifetime to support a blurb. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone through the article and editing his early biography, removing a great amount of unsourced material, adding in new information about his career, and citing sources. I hope that anyone who opposed the article due to its shape before reconsider their vote, or go edit the article to further improve it. Thank you. Nice4What (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot better - I’ve struck my opposition to RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging users who opposed based on previous quality: Coffeeandcrumbs, Masem, Jayron32, Mjroots. Nice4What (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 12 hours later and already off the main page of the CBC, Washington post, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, times of India, Spiegel .... no longer news, no longer a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha. The irony. Quite a ploy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems you're still not reading what reliable sources have said about Lagerfeld's indisputable significance... Nice4What (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Every individual with a Wikipedia article is significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The german variant of Spiegel has 4 stories about him in very prominent position at this moment. So, not really true to claim it is off their main page. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't read German, and this is the English Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So? You make wild claims that are blatantly untrue. Looked at CBC, there is a link to a Lagerfeld story on the main page. Looked at WaPo, Lagerfeld content on the main page. You don't want this as a blurb, fine. Making stuff up is not though. And you basically telling me that all non english sources are ueless because you can't read them is, quite frankly, astonishing. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at https://www.cbc.ca right now, Lagerfeld is not on the main page anywhere. Why do you tell such needless lies? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, i assumed you meant CBC news. Is that not the main page to look for news on the CBC? Genuinely sorry if it is not. But there is a link there anyway. And you may want to tone down the rethoric when you yourself just made multiple dubious claims. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You refuted only one of their sources, sounds like a weakening argument. You're very persistent in your belief that this death doesn't meet your personal "level of coverage". The IP address was able to find stories on the other cites and made the point that you're dismissing international sources. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've got it backwards, I checked the sites I cited before citing them, the IP user is a lying liar who lied when calling me a liar, and I proved their lying lies to be lies. There is no reason for me to further debunk the lies of a documented lying liar. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to calm down a bit. I just checked what the IP claimed and their claims seem to be rather true. There are multiple stories on Lagerfeld at Speigel, I found three articles about Lagerfeld at the Washington Post main page as they claimed, and their CBC News link also includes stories about the death. I obviously don't necessarily agree with the IP since they are indifferent about the blurb, but repeating the words "lying liar" doesn't further your point. Nice4What (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok seriously, LaserLegs are you 12 or what? I have seen a link to Lagerfeld on the CBC news site on the side bar there, Spiegel full of coverage and the WaPo had a story and a video about him when i looked (all of which may well have changed by now, i really don't care either way). I don't get what set you off here. I really don't care if this gets posted. Totally neutral. But your antics... wow. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, where have you 'proven' anything? When i admitted and apologised for a misunderstanding about having looked at the news section of CBC for news instaed of the generic CBC page? Oh yeah, shame on me for for that. You totally cought me... But whatever, If it makes you feel good to accuse me of being a liar, then go ahead. Really couldn't care less. Anyway, have a good night non the less. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Post RD now and discuss possible blurb later. The article is ready for RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD, please continue blurb discussion Yes, I !voted but there's clearly article improved and consensus to post the RD minimally. --M asem (t) 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per The Rambling Man's rationale. The quality seems sufficient now but I haven't looked at the article's references closely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the German Wikipedia has not done a blurb for Lagerfeld. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you know if they ever do blurbs? There is a very large dedicated section only for deaths on the german main page. Not attached to ITN like on the english language Wikipedia but its own thing. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A dedicated section only for deaths, right below "In the news"? Why didn't we think of that?? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of sarcasm really helps to bring ones own point across. Anyway, you have no clue how the german Wikipedia works internaly, how they do their version of ITN, RD and what have you. You don't speak the language so really should not point at something you know nothing about to use it as an example to support your own position. You may be right that they did not deem important enough. But they may well just do it differently. Just because something works in a certain way here does not mean it works the same way on every other Wiki. And besides that, it really should not make any difference what they do as you yourself pointed out to me, this is the english Wikipedia. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The de wiki is the second largest Wikipedia (excluding bot generated Wikipedias) and it has a dedicated ITN feature in which Lagerfeld does not have a blurb. Nor is there a blurb for him in the ES wiki. I think the best think for you to do is to stop telling lies about me. --02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And it has a dedicated, stand alone RD section, unlike this place. But hey, you want to claim expertise about something you don't know, fine by me. 91.96.119.222 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With your previous comments about Merkel, it seems you don't understand that Lagerfeld's nationality was not significant to his identity. He spent most of his life in Paris, moving there when he was fourteen years old. Also, what does it matter what the editors at the German Wikipedia choose to do if they have different processes/guidelines? Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "O Freunde, nicht diese Töne! Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen und freudenvollere!" – Sca (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * RD is reasonable. Death is gaining widespread coverage and article is now of reasonable quality so blurb may be warranted. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-closure comment, it's a shame that a majority was reached to post it as a blurb (from what I counted) with many of the votes for "Oppose" being based on the article's original quality, which was then updated/fixed. I truly believe that the blurb should've been posted rather than a closed discussion. Nice4What (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (Post-closure) On Wikipedia you just have to learn that if the field is not white male high culture (painting/cricket/composing or similar) or white male geek culture (video games/comics or similar) it just doesn't have a decent chance. articles purely dedicated to his influence are still being posted, but barely anyone on Wikipedia is into fashion and that's all that matters. Someone like Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman will almost certainly pass. Anna Wintour will be denied too, it's a bad reflection on us. GuzzyG (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to get the numbers right, prior to the close, there were (at my count) 10 people with clear supports for a blurb, 9 people who supported RD only/Oppose Blurb, and 3-4 others who either didn't care, opposed any posting, or whose preference was unclear. It was a bare majority that supported the blurb, and such close margins are within the admin discretion, based on their reading of the rationales supporting either side.  This could have gone either way; it is hardly a clear consensus regardless.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After further reflection, if the nom were re-opened, I would probably support a blurb after all per TRM. (WaltCip, logged out)--128.227.165.102 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Am even more surprised that this was closed because of the large amount of discussion. Seems somehow counter-intuitive. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could the closure can be reverted and to allow the blurb be posted? I would look past the clutter made by the same users refuting the death's significance. This man was an icon and was the leading figure of the industry. This is not just a "somebody" who passed away, this is a transformative figure who continued to work and influence others until age 85. The article was in terrible shape and as stated, greatly improved in quality. Nice4What (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters but i would also switch to supporting a blurb. I know nothing of fashion and care even less about it but, per TRM, if reliable sources make him out to be this huge figure in his field, then that is good enough for me to support a blurb. 91.97.252.62 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had no dog in the fight, and RS consistently referred to him as a fashion "icon" or a fashion "legend".  This, certainly where I'm from, equates to "transformative" in the field of fashion, precisely what would deserve a blurb. Still, Carrie Fisher eh?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not too familiar with this field, but I would have leaned support for a blurb. The spike in views that the page is getting now suggests to me that he must have been pretty transformative. Besides, the blurbs haven't changed at all over the past several days... Ahiijny (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not Support before this nomination was closed (after 20 hours, 26 minutes). Having considered the arguments on both sides, I too would have supported a blurb, even without use of "the i word". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent shifts in consensus, I am posting this as a blurb. I know I participated in the discussion, but as my preference was to go the other way on this one, this should avoid any problems with involvement.  My preference is clear, but I can also see where consensus is not with me on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Post second closing comment (since that's what we do now). Wow, closed, more complaining, and blurbed. It pushed El Chapo out of the box, even though we have a dedicated space for obits. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "It pushed El Chapo out of the box" as if that wasn't inevitable? It's been a while since something was posted... and equating people changing their votes as "more complaining" isn't the right way to look at things. Nice4What (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - This is clearly an iconic person within his field of work. I comment since I was not the one suggesting the blurb. BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb has already been posted but I appreciate the support :) Nice4What (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wallace Smith Broecker

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Cawkwell

 * Comment - One award is unreferenced. One reference is permanently dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced award now referenced. The permanently dead link - the only source I could find was, and I'm not sure it meets WP:RS --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the only replacement source (a like link to replace the dead one) is the one linked above --DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "George Cawkwell Christ church" and "George Cawkwell Auckland" fared well for me. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The ref is fine.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The source in the nomination, despite leaning a bit primary, can at least be believed since it is from Cawkwell's university-college. A search of `"tickleme.info" -site:tickleme.info` doesn't lead me to anywhere mentioning it, and especially considering the .info TLD which I rarely tend to trust I very much doubt it's reliability. I've replaced the reference. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You maybe right, but I think, taking out this specific ref will not damage the article. It can be replaced by a more reliable source.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - All refs issues resolved. Article is fine for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Concerns solved. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Wells (director)

 * Comment - Article is almost completely unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now at Peter Wells (writer). Needs a bit more work. —Hugh (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bibliography unreferenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now improvements to referencing have been done. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - All refs issues resolved., (sorry for ping you, people) if you could give it a look.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I've tidied it further and given the refs sensible names. I think it's ready to go. —Hugh (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) The Independent Group

 * Oppose internal politics. If it impacted Brexit then I’d reconsider otherwise it’s just a thing that affects a handful of people who didn’t see this coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a parochial political in-fighting. A split in a party in the minority is unlikely to result in any substantive shift in government. Good faith nomination but a consesus to post is unlikely to form.--- Coffee  and crumbs  13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. This isn't really that significant yet, but it might become so if it attracts a significant number of MPs from across the house - expecially if it does so in a way that impacts Brexit - or it could fizzle out. If it is posted, the blurb should probably include "United Kingdom" in there somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurbs reworked to include UK. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment th BBC report I read says they are describing themselves as not a party, are all those categories therefore incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Issues with the article should be directed to the article's talk page. The above does not impact on the nomination, which does not claim that they are a political party, but merely names the new group. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, see below! If people are mistakenly thinking something because the article is erroneous, and voting accordingly, it needs to be mentioned. It wouldn’t be right if people read the article and suddenly believed we have a new party in the UK when they themselves are saying we don’t, wouldn’t you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is the first time a new party with multiple MPs has been formed since the 1980s and the reasons surrounding its formation are also noteworthy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. If this proves significant in any fundamental way, then sure. But for now it's just a side show to the ongoing Brexit shenanigans. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, Coffeecrumbs. Parochial political spat. Sca (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is quite domestic politics. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most arguements above in agreement, but would also add that seven out of 248 (I believe) Labour MPs is a drop in the bucket. In contrast, as a hypothetical example, if 100 or more of those all dropped into a brand new party, that might be more significant. --M asem (t) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is something which has been spoken about for months and has finally occured - agree that seven isn't a very significant number but is nonetheless a major story in UK politics. Successfulwd (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the moment, this split is insignificant. There is no evidence thus far that they intend to form a new party or even run in the next election, and seven party members is not sufficient to reach the level of significance.  If further developments arise, such as more members joining them, and this group organizing to contest new elections, then perhaps significance may be reached at that time.  But as of now, significance has not yet been reached. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC))
 * Wait. Let's give this a bit more time. I suppose this could make some outsized waves, but we would have to see. Article seems pretty good though. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor spat affecting a tiny minority within a minority party. British MPs resign the party whip or are suspended all the time (prior to today, there were already 5 independent former-Labour MPs who've resigned from the party plus one who's been expelled); all that's mildly unusual here is that seven of them have done so on the same day. &#8209; Iridescent 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent and the fact that Labour is not in a coalition or confidence and supply means this splinter will not affect the balance of power in this Parliament. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Flynn (politician)

 * Weak support it's a dreadfully constructed article but what's there is almost entirely cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don't know that I would call it "dreadfully constructed" but the structure could be improved and there are a couple of sections boarding on proseline, but what's there is comprehensive and cited. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with the sentiments above. This article could really benefit from exposure on the Main Page, leading to a proper copy edit by the masses. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Largely an unsung Labour stalwart. No one can deny his dedication in serving the people of Newport. Any ideas on improving the structure welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ethel Ennis

 * Support - I think I fixed all the refs issues. Please tell me if something else needs to be done.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good now, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Caddell

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good enough for RD, although I dislike sections that consist entirely of a short sentence and lengthy quote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Bass (artist)

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready to post--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Nordine

 * Weak Oppose The article is not in horrible shape, but there are a handful of spots that really need a cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose plenty of unreferenced items in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved the discography to a new page, which is where most of the unreferenced items are.yorkshiresky (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the decision to split the discography while leaving a selected short list. His list of credits is rather long. This is good to go. I wish we could get a voice sample though. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruno Ganz

 * Oppose. Significantly under referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Will work on it, but too nice weather to do it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added refs, and commented out awards without one. Please look again. Obituaries in major English papers. We'd look silly not to mention him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Well referenced. take another look at the awards section. I think you broke your comments.---  Coffee  and crumbs  17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Internationally known for his performance in Downfall (Der Untergang). Sca (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sca, nobody here is interested in that. Only if it and everything else has a reference. Please add some, if you can, to the awards commented out, and to role descriptions added late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. One the greatest German-speaking actors of all times and the article is well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Well done to everybody who helped get the article up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li Rui

 * Bot isn't working, I'll leave a note on the operator's talk page; moved from February 15 per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Small, but in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Smith (archivist)
--Tone 10:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sweet and well referenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lee Radziwill

 * Oppose. Significant gaps in sourcing, some explicitly tagged but most not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - way too many tags. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sourcing of article has improved but still a couple of citations needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Page is now at Lee Radziwiłł (with diacritics). —Hugh (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 American State of Emergency

 * Oppose First, article quality but that can be improved. But moreso this is 100% partisan politics, wholly expected (since its been rumbling for month+ on this), and we know that this is not like declaring martial law or to respond to disasters but simply a way to access gov't coffers. --M asem (t) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article as it stands now is entirely slanted towards a point of view opposing the National Emergency and is not objective at all. The nominator has attempted to revert even minor revisions to the article that attempt to correct this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Something like the 100th SOE Trump has announced out of similar partisan battles. And it seems to have already left the news. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The DTs yet again. Sca (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support on significance. This is most certainly in the news, whether anyone likes it or not, and it's a totally bogus state of emergency in a country with incredible influence over international affairs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on all counts. The ginger whinger has tried some trump card for Mexican takeout?   WHAT? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose., let's bang this thing out before we renominate. We have to make quite a few improvements before we renominate. I have a something in my sandbox for when we get this done. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  00:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why haven't we put all of the other national states of emergency on the front page of Wikipedia when they have occurred? I agree that this should be in the Current Events section (as it already is), but this should not be ITN (if I have my acronyms right). -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrea Levy

 * Support looks just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support; "weak" because born in London to Jamaican parents who sailed to England on the Empire Windrush in 1948 sounds dubious (I can't find any source that her mother sailed on the Windrush in 1948, and it's certainly not cited), and if even the first sentence contains an error it throws the accuracy of the rest of the article into question. &#8209; Iridescent 12:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From The Guardian obituary - "Levy was born in London in 1956 to parents who were part of the boom in immigration that shaped postwar Britain, her father arriving in the UK on the Empire Windrush in 1948 and her mother following shortly afterwards." I've removed the date, if somebody insists on a time period, "post-war" could be used. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So that's a source for her father; where's any indication that her mother sailed on the Windrush? It's not as if there was only one passenger ship sailing the transatlantic route in the 1940s. &#8209; Iridescent 12:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that (at least in the current version). I note an IP tried to fix this but was reverted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * she came on a banana boat. I've added the source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too many quotes. What we have here is not a biography which is what is supposed to be. It is simply a collection of quotes from reviews. The article is unsatisfactory in general. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position to improve the article much until this evening, though I will say it is in much better shape than many RD nominations I have seen, which require extensive work before they're ready. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, - can you help with this? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Great work. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - good enough.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - the awards section is completely uncited, and I'm not certain the sole citation in the second paragraph of the "Work" section supports all the information there (and if it does it will need to be checked to make sure we're not relying too heavily on a single source). Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Her awards looked like they were cited in the preceding sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns have all been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, I do not know if I can support as a contributor to improving the citations and text, but I believe we have now addressed the concerns previously expressed and think that it should move forward. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given the three of us who have worked on the article to address the above issues credit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Ready now. Great work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Pulwama attack

 * Support. Suggest changing the blurb to:
 * Around 40 security personnel were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Pulwama in Kashmir.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Death toll varies from 36 to 44 in different sources so I had written the lowest. The numbers can be updated as exact numbers are known. I think the article should be linked differently in your blurb. I have posted altblurb. -Nizil (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why it is better to use a round number. I can live with linking the article to the "suicide bombing attack" key phrase. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated number to 38 as per list released.-Nizil (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - long enough and good coverage. Also recommend at minimum autoconfirm protection, ASAP. Juxlos (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is in the news. Will have long lasting impact on relation between India and Pakistan Sherenk1 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Now death toll rises to 44, please consider it too.-- Prongs 31  11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Also major news in the UK. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the number killed is a bit of a mess within the article, various points claim various numbers, starting with 49 and ending with 38. And since we don't start sentences with numbers, it would probably be ideal to start with "At least 38 people..." just to cover both scenarios.  The rest of the article is satisfactory for main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP says 41. BBC 46. (Added above as sources). Blurbs should be in present tense. Sca (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the deadliest attacks since Kashmir insurgency began and is also receiving massive media coverage. As far as death toll is concerned, I'd say that the blurb should be updated to 49 deaths. Amir (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A major attack which will have profound effect in the domestic affairs of India, and the overall diplomatic and security situation in South Asia. <font color="#FF9933">Bharatiya <font color="#138808">29 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Someone changed Kashmir to India-controlled Kashmir. Kashmir is a disputed region so better use word India-administered Kashmir or neutral Kashmir as proposed in the original blurb. Controlled implies forceful occupation.-Nizil (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment to WP:ERRORS &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I suggested new blurb above, it is sufficient to merge two suicide bombing attack, 2019 Pulwama attack and 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombing.Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not a good idea. I do not see a clear connection between the perpertrators. These should be separate line items as they occurred in two separate non-bordering nations. It appears to be mere coincidense that the two events are similar and occurred within days of each other. They are both ITN-worthy events in their own right.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here it is Hindustan Times-Pressure mounts on UK to retract ‘India-administered Kashmir’ remark Times of India - Indians protest British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt's "India-Administered Kashmir" phraseShwetamits (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Jammu & Kashmir is not Indian-administered". Jammu and Kashmir is the state of India. Kindly check the sources. Unless and until, it's not verified or disputable or debatable, it's not proper on Wikipedia. It doesn't have verified the source.

(Closed) Airbus A380 cancellation

 * Oppose I'm not sure it really does "mark an era", after all there will still be plenty of A380s flying around. If this was about the last one being retired, I think it would mark the end of an era, but just announcing that they'll stop making it in two years time is not really anything to write home about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that after 2021 there will be no more new A380 which is a short and rather unexpected production span (merely 16 years) compared to many (if not most) other airliners. Boeing 747, for example, is still in production, since 1968. Airbus A320 is being produced since 1986. Brandmeistertalk  11:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's really not that remarkable. The 717 was only in production for eight years, the 707 for 22 years, the A310 for 15 years etc.  This isn't special. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that they weren't as large as A380, of course. Brandmeistertalk  12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I really fail to see how that makes this anything more than a piece of random trivia, better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so quick to deep-six this. If we were rolling out a new highest-capacity plane, even by a negligible margin, that would warrant posting (IMO). Here we have a rollback in the highest capacity plane in production from 850 to 650. Why? Is is just not needed? Then why was it ever built? There seems to be a story there worth telling, and the article does a fine job of it. ghost 13:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Things moved on. No big deal.  Certainly nowhere near ITN significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You already cast your vote and made your rationale known. You present no additional arguments here. There's no need to reply to every comment by every other editor. ghost 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I answered your questions. If you don't want to have questions answered, don't ask them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Perhaps significant for (some of) the countries in which Airbus planes are manufactured/assembled, but not for the big aviation picture. Jumbojets will be around for a long time. Sca (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing the significance here for an event that is still two years away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if it was the stoppage of A380s today, the end of production of a product like a plane really means little. It would be different if Airbus was going out of business and producing its last plane (an event equivalent to Ford producing its last vehicle), but Airbus will exist after stoppage of the A380. --M asem (t) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombing

 * Comment This article may have POV and neutrality issues. Maybe all it needs is a copy edit. It reads as confusing and garbled to me. However, it does appear to have good sourcing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has improved since I reviewed it a few days ago. The news is significant. Iran has largely remained unscathed while it's proxy states have suffered major losses. An attack on Iranian soil leading to the deaths of so many Revolutionary Guards is significant news. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Significant and newsworthy. -- M h hossein   talk 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please consider posting it? It's already late...-- M h hossein   talk 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Stadlmair

 * Support - Well referenced. One award is not referenced, but I suppose it's easy to fix.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The award is referenced now, and I'll look for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Sufficient detail and referencing. Good to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient quality, its ready for the main page --DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Harrison (footballer)

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No apparent issues of concern. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been good to go for nearly nine hours folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bibi Ferreira

 * I didn't nominate this one because it's still a stub and my Portuguese no es bueno. (I know that's Spanish.) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was about to nominate it, but I was without time to work on the article and I thought it would be better to improve the article before nominating it.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support lead could use a little expansion, but the article, while short, is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead slightly to give the scope of her career. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Article could be expanded but the article, despite being short, is well referenced and Ferreira was one the greatest actresses in the history of Brazilian theater.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of NASA Opportunity rover mission

 * Wait until after the press conference is held making the official announcement, and oppose unless and until that information is properly added to the article; when those conditions are met, I would be fine with posting the article on the main page. It's in good shape.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the other way round to Jayron, but the same, we can't post something that hasn't happened, but once it has happened, we can post it assuming someone makes a lot of changes to the article, tenses, updates etc. Premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a seminal rover, and an updated article. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Officially declared dead. Will be updating in moments here. --M asem (t) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work. I wonder if there's any mileage in looking at ITNR for an additional entry on space entities which have passed their sell-by date.  Or perhaps they just speak for themselves.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is unique, I feel, due to the fact NASA pulled 55x more mission time out of this than planned. If it died after 4 months after a 3 month-expected start, ehhhhh. I think this a "best judgement" case here, on merits alone. --M asem (t) 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. NASA has released a statement that they are officially considering the rover to be dead and detailed all the efforts the agency went through to reestablish contact with it since it entered protective hibernation on June 12, 2018.  Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the words of Maggie Smith:
 * "...The world is at least fifty percent terrible, and that’s a conservative estimate, though I keep this from my children. For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird. For every loved child, a child broken, bagged, sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world is at least half terrible, and for every kind stranger, there is one who would break you..."


 * Two of the four items on ITN now are good news. I would even argue this is positive news; the conclusion of a highly-successful mission.--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This. I consider that while its a shame we could get another 14 yrs out of it, we did get 50 times more out of what was planned due to some human ingenuity. --M asem (t) 03:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We can only consider what is nominated, and we have no control over the goings on in the world. If you would like to see more 'good' stories, I invite you to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Transhumanist comment was meant for the Haiti story. There is a duplicate comment there from an IP minutes earlier. ghost 13:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note that, regardless of which story Transhumanist was talking about, I have seen zero articles he improved and nominated in the past 2-3 days to fix the perceived problem he has. It's one thing to note the existence of a problem.  It's quite another to note the existence of a problem, and then demand that other people, who have no more authority than you do, fix that problem.  If Transhumanist had really wanted the problem fixed, he would have actually fixed it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Haitian protests

 * Wait this may have been already ongoing for seven days but it's just really hitting significant news coverage now. The article doesn't really articulate a week's worth of serious activity either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news. 2600:1:9810:BFFE:614E:1B8B:67B1:AE75 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck invalid comment. Please bring general concerns like this to WT:ITN instead of disrupting this page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article isn't in bad shape - could be better but not bad - and it's quite reflective of Venezuela right now, if with a decade's less warning. It can definitely sit in Ongoing. Unfortunately, not many good news story are ongoing, it's mostly protests, odd politics, and international sports (1 bad, 2 neutral). Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news, sufficient article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support News coverage has now increased to a level sufficient for ITN. The article is well referenced.--- Coffee  and crumbs  15:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) North Macedonia

 * Support - Time to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the necessary updates yet. --Tone 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not trying to stall this clearly-going-to-be-ITN story, but from the above article "With Greece's ratification of the NATO accord, the former Yugoslav republic will now write to the United Nations, its member states, and international organizations, formally announcing the name change. A government spokesman told the AP this would happen "in coming days."" It sounds like that letter will be the point of official change? I don't know, the situation seems to change a new bit of this story comes up. --M asem (t) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Macedonia's accession into NATO, which per sources was the final obstacle preventing the Republic from using the name, was a success. If I'm not mistaken we posted Montenegro's accession into NATO as a standalone story, but I'd recommend an altblurb that adds Macedonia's accession as a footnote. It's not easy to make it succinct, but it is noteworthy enough to put it somewhere in the blurb. I do agree with Masem that we should probably watch for developments over the next few days, but that shouldn't be an issue large enough for the nomination to go stale. If the UN adoption of the name is the real point of official change, we can modify the blurbs to mention that if necessary. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to the whole mess. I'm reading this BBC article (from last week) that says that NATO accession is not yet there (but virtually guaranteed), but Greece being the first to ratify it validates the naming of North Macedonia? It's also odd that no big sources are covering this above event; they've got coverage from last week. You would think this is 100% the type of story BBC and NYtimes would be covering today if today was the milestone we've been waiting on. Also wholly separate but to help guide, there's an RFC  and a move request  related to the naming. Going by the move request, it sounds like the official date the name change takes effect is Feb 15 (this Friday), but I can't easily find a place to confirm that. AGain, this entire situation is clearly ITN, and I have little doubt anything will change the trajectory of this. But that said, given that we appear to be waiting on the name change (potentially), our ITN should align with that. --M asem  (t) 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly about as confused as you are, but to the best of my knowledge, the guarantee of their accession into NATO was what they were waiting for before adopting the name change. I will clarify that my support !vote does not mean that I think we need to post it now, but I didn't vote !wait because I don't expect the nomination to go stale before we post it. I'm going off of the previous ITN nomination which I voted !wait on as it cited a BBC article which, if I'm not mistaken, said that Macedonia won't start using the name North Macedonia until their accession into NATO. Now that there's no obstacles to their accession, what I've read up to this point leads me to believe there's also no obstacles to their name change. That being said, I'm more than happy to wait a few days for further clarification. I don't expect that we post this today, tomorrow, or the day after that, but I do think that - unlike all the prior attempts at posting this - we won't need to close the nomination. If it is confirmed on February 15th, we can post it then. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * COMMENT I don't know who added the alt blurb, but North Macedonia didn't enter NATO, Greece has just signed the NATO accession protocol. The other 28 member states have to do the same. Nice4What (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct; for all intents and purposes, the blurb is to be regarded as being in the future (for now). Both the part where Macedonia changes their name to North Macedonia & the part where Macedonia joins NATO are technically still (near) future events. The latter paved the way for the former, which should be happening in less than a week. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 06:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until Friday. Both the name change and ascension to NATO are significant, but given timing and confluence, we should just post together. ghost 13:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Meh. Sca (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Man, people are just itchy to get this posted; so far every nomination has been an incremental step along the way towards the name change. If anything, these repeated nominations are just going to annoy people into voting against it when the time does come.  Our current article even says "it is scheduled to be renamed to North Macedonia."  Let's wait until the new letterhead is printed up and it's all done before we post this?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * COMMENTS - North Macedonia did not enter NATO, the process has not even began yet. Also, Should this wait until the page has been moved to North Macedonia and all relevant changes done? --Michail (blah) 00:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Reposted discussion since official reports indicate the name change has officially occurred, so there may be no need to wait anymore (in regards to the original blurb, the Alt Blurb about NATO won't happen for another year...) Nice4What (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now From the move discussion, this official document appears to confirm the name change as official as 12 Feb. --M asem (t) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose – We cannot post until the page is moved. Otherwise, we would be sabotaging the move discussion. We would need an admin to speedy close the discussion before hand. ITN cannot blurb a name change until the name of the subject article is also renamed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The current state of the relevant RFC to move the page seems to have very overwhelming support, (near unanimous !votes for moving it, and all !votes since the official adoption were fully unanimous in their support) so I think it would be appropriate for an administrator to close it per SNOW. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 05:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment & Support MSGJ has renamed the country's article to North Macedonia (which probably says a lot about his/her political biases, seeing how it took half a year after the official renaming for the WP:Commonname to be satisfied in the case of Swaziland/eSwatini), so I think we're ready to go and post this. Finally. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news now as an official complete event. The article has been moved. The time for posting is now. The posting admin can figure out the exactities of the blurb. LukeSurlt c 10:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I stroke alt 1 as premature and suggested a new blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --Tone 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to rush to ERRORS before asking - why is "Prespa Agreement" capitalized? The article is named "Prespa agreement". --DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen both in RS. Given the brevity required of the MP, "A" seems more natural. ghost 12:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pedro Morales

 * Oppose– I generally trust the sections cited to an offline source as generously contributed by an IP in 2012 (diff). Those sections have remained largely untouched. However, since then 3 additionals sections have been added: Early life, Legacy and Personal life. These new sections are generally constructive and sourced to online sources. However, a spot check of several of these sections reveals that our article drifts away from what the sources say. For example, in the Early life section, a sentence reads: "In New York he also became a professional wrestling fan, witnessing Miguel Pérez, Sr.'s run as one half of the only undefeated NWA Capitol (WWWF's predecessor) World Tag Team Champions along Antonino Rocca." However, the source only says "he became a wrestling fan following the tag team of Antonino Rocca & Miguel Perez." I will change my !vote to support once we go over these three sections for verification and cite any other stray uncited claims. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The results of his matches in the article, which are what is being sourced with the offline reference, are congruent with our online sources as far as I can tell. Being a wrestler from the pre-internet era, that is as good as we can get since WWE only lists a select few. And, in any case, what makes him notable is easily sourced. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to Rocca/Pérez, that bit of trivia is not false. Their titles were replaced and they did not lose them. It's superfluous to Morales, but not something that would make the content unreliable. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have finished verifying the Early life section. But there are more issues possibly in the Legacy section and definitely in the Personal life section. It says "Morales married his wife Karen in 1966." The source gives no date. Our articles says his son was born in 1974. But we can not be sure from the same source whether he was born in 1973 or 74. These are uncited claims and original synthesis not contained in the sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose looks like there needs to be serious evaluation of the article versus verifiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lyndon LaRouche

 * Oppose per poor refenrencing, especially the §Controversy section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it's tagged and undergoing a major re-write. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) El Chapo

 * Comment This is clearly an ITN-appropriate story, but I will point out that no sentence has been handed down yet. --M asem (t) 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * His first count, Continuing Criminal Enterprise, already holds a mandatory life imprisonment without parole. He was found guilty of all charges. Sentence is scheduled for June but IMO this is more newsworthy since we already know how June will play out. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on that point. Added an altblurb so we know that minimum he will get is life (barring a plea bargain) --M asem (t) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news now, and the article is of sufficient quality with an update. If it's a mandatory minimum life sentence, I think we know enough to not wait for sentencing. The conviction is the bigger deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. I tweaked the phrasing for clarity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As noted above, "it's in the news now", and June will be a non-story (a confirmation and little more). Can I suggest a blurb (which ever is eventually gone with) that is phrased "all criminal charges" not "all ten", as the latter suggests the reader is already cognisant of those charges. And it might avoid an appearance at WP:ERRORS. Or even WP:ERRORS2 :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the reason to say "all ten" because it tells the reader a rough idea of the scope of the trial. "All charges" could mean as few as ~3, as many as.. well, there's no reasonable limit if they included manslaught-type charges. -M asem (t) 23:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotya—and agree; supporting ALT3. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic. Significant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per others. Appropriate. Spengouli (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 (Succinct.) – Yup, off to the slammer. (Three more sources.) Sca (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support its ITN now, sources and quality good, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – good news.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   00:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not for El Chapo &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Banks

 * Support could use more on the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, but article is in very good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Well-referenced article, currently a GA. Death section can be expanded as more details are known. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t think this was ready, I see five “citation needed” tags. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very surprised those "slipped through the net", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't be Pele's edits then huh :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But great to see Bruce Rambolaar, diving across to the article's far post there, to save the day. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Boechat

 * Weak support it's just above stub, but what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan Wild

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joe Schlesinger

 * Oppose weak referencing on Honours section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibghatullah Mojaddedi

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He died on the 9th and news came out on the 9th. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you'll be updating the article then? Stephen 23:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely read this wrong. The page did does not contain a proper update at all. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 21 Savage

 * Did you link the wrong article? The comment doesn't really fit. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On second glance, this seems to be a copypasted nomination. Apologies for the mention. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, there is a nomination here for the 61st Grammys. Is that what you meant? Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I meant 21 Savage's deportation. I was just using Masem's post for a template on how to make a nomination for the news, sorry.Ed. Jishnu (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be two expandable boxes on the header of the edit page of *this* page for the basic template format. TRying to copy and paste existing ones can get into problems. --M asem (t) 19:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose people overstay their valid visa duration all the time. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On lack of significance. (Also, the somewhat hagiographic article contains 11 paragraphs that begin with, "On such-and-such a date," etc.) – Sca (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maximilian Reinelt

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 61st Grammys

 * Oppose pretty far from ready! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This would be at least the fourth year in a row that the Grammys were not improved enough to be posted, which to me means we may have to consider ITNR (not preventing future Grammys but they would be more carefully vetted first). --M asem (t) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly worth removing from ITNR. What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter B. Jones Jr.

 * Support Article looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to post. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 72nd British Academy Film Awards

 * Oppose All the tables lack references. We need some more prose in the "Winners and nominees" section to summarize some major points contained in the tables like the very fact pointed out in the blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, there should be some details about the ceremony, even if the BAFTA lack the glitz and glam of the Oscars. --M asem (t) 00:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Added altblurb2 mentioning The Favourite 's 7 awards (only Roma 's Best Film award is ITNR, but mentioning the 7 awards gives a more accurate summary of what happened). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment re italics: In blurb and altblurbs movie names Roma and The Favourite should be in italics (per MOS), but for some reason the non-italic fields appear in italics and vice versa in the blurbs (but not once the blurb gets posted). I've 'fixed' this for the movie names in altblurb2 (which I created) so ironically they currently appear in non-italics (but I've left the blurb and altblurb1 'unfixed' just in case it's somehow deemed inappropriate for me to add such a strange 'fix' to somebody else's blurb/altblurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurbs are displayed in italics, so titles that then further italicized "flip" back to normal. This is fine, as admins posting these blurbs will copy the wikicode from the blurb to use. So you shouldn't actually try to fix this, it is just a net result of the nom template. --M asem (t) 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Added ref for all the winners/nominees and added a blurb for the ceremony. yorkshiresky (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support at last some prose about the event itself. It's terribly formatted but its presence may just about be enough to push this onto the main page, and meanwhile, the Grammys article languishes in abject mediocrity.  Good work United Kingdom! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Huang Erh-hsuan

 * Oppose basically a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The page is short, but it has no WP:RS or WP:MOS issues. Add a little more information about their career and it should be fine. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 09:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Roughly 900 character of prose is stub. We shouldn't be supporting stubs for main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mick Kennedy

 * Oppose inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katharina Lindner

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, tag! Sorry, can you take a second look. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ron W. Miller

 * Oppose pitiful referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Patricia Nell Warren

 * Oppose inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tomi Ungerer

 * Support - Article seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fernando Clavijo

 * I can't seem to find many sources for MISL statistics, etc. I wonder where they were found in the first place. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose serious referencing problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I fixed the referencing problems. If there any others refs missing please tell me and I'll do my best to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cadet (rapper)

 * Comment the discography section needs referencing - I'm take a look for sources for that shortly. Other than that it looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it seems the source you added was removed by Lopifalko with the bizarre edit summary "No source needed". Not knowing this I added a different source, so the section is cited again. Anyway Support. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is "No source needed" bizarre? I am under the impression that discographies do not need sources, but I have never seen policy on that, just not aware of having ever seen a discography section sourced. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely bizarre. Have you ever looked at any discography FLs?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only that, isn't it odd to remove reliable sources citing facts in any case? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could someone check this properly please; the full name was cited to Instagram and the place of death is currently given as Crewe, Cheshire when actually it looks more likely to be Betley, Staffordshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Location of death appears to have been fixed some time ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Full name is referenced to the BBC. Who knows where they got it from.... Instagram probably .  Any other issues?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed both of these; I do happen to have expertise on where Betley is; I don't have expertise to check the remainder. In case it is unclear to the posting admin, I object to posting until someone with that expertise checks it thoroughly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone doubted you knew where Betley is, never up for debate. But what a curious position, you object wholesale until an "expert" checks it?  How many other RDs have you made such a request?  Is that now a thing, to request "expertise" to check the bio of a dead rapper?  A Nobel laureate?  A ex-professional footballer?  Either the sources are RS and verify the content, or they're not or they don't.  It doesn't need "expertise" to check this, anyone can do it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Well, I doubt it's necessary to be an expert on the subject to know where a village is located, but the article seems fine and referenced well enough. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, well-sourced. Unfortunate that GRM Daily is still a red link. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure that the comments of seemed resolved, where was the rush to post here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've removed one obvious BLP violation. Much of the career still appears sourced to primary sources such as Youtube videos. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing wholly inadequate for a BLP. Relies almost entirely in certain sections to primary sources. Primary sources should be used sparingly. I encourage the posting admin to reconsider their review process and self-correct. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've pulled this one for now, seems I jumped the gun. Please let me know if/when issues are resolved and I will repost. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sources include Instagram and Youtube and this needs to be fixed before it is posted. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are still three YouTube videos which are regarded as WP:PRIMARY, although the one of "Behind Barz" as a source for his faith being Islam could be removed as there are two others. I'm not sure why the other two can't be used as evidence of the song's existence, but I'm unable to find any alternative sources yet for the "2.8 million views" and "2.1 million views" respectively. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have made significant progress enough to post. The remaining are acceptable uses of primary sources. I change my !vote to Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, in the absence of any fresh objections, I've changed this to "Attention needed". The YouTube view counts could be commented out if they are seen as a real problem. Personally I don't see the issue. No-one ever verifies these figures, but they seem notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Walter Munk

 * Comment. Sourcing needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sourcing and tense issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Finney

 * Oppose for now per nom.  -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose big gaps in referencing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe I fixed all the referencing issues. Hard work, but Finney deserves it. If any refs issue still persist I'm willing to fix, Finney was a great actor, I'm a huge fan and I think he deserves the Main Page.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely fixed referencing. Not essential to posting as RD, but you have duplication sections related to awards and honors. One should be a high level prose summary, though and nix all the nominations (the table supports that). --M asem (t) 04:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. On a quick glance, I think this still needs a bit of work. The career section is a little chaotic and suffers short paragraph syndrome. The duplicate awards summary (the one in prose) is far too long given that the table exists; it should just be a high-level summary. I've tagged a missing source for his 3rd wife, who doesn't appear to be mentioned in the main text. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I included the source for his 3rd wife and his son. Actually, I didn't do much work on the article's structure and writing. I most included missing refs as in my understanding that's more important for a RD as BLP violation is a serious issue.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if I could support my own nom, I would do so now, weakly. Fantastic work on referencing, just a few gaps, but orders of magnitude better than when I nominated it, so thanks and well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most well-sourced articles I have seen here. Don't think the duplication is a big problem and could be fixed in slower time if necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Nelson fires

 * Oppose Good faith, but this nom is far too early, both in terms of impact and article quality. ghost 12:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG, however in case this changes I have fixed the blurb to make it clear this is in NZ, there is a well-known city of Wakefield in the UK too. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose local event and article is not substantial enough. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article consists of a single 3-sentence paragraph. There's no way we should link that from the main page.  If and when the article has been expanded to a reasonable level of comprehensiveness, ping me and I will reassess it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides

 * Comment better altblurb3. We try to avoid superlatives in blurbs. --M asem (t) 17:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT3 is fine with me. Thanks for fixing the tone, even writing in present tense feels weird. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is ready for posting, refs are good. Has received attention world wide.BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic article, alt3 preferred. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * alt3 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all! And thanks to all who patiently educated me through the process! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WTH?! Since when do we post blurbs less than three hours after being proposed and with only two(!) supports? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear... this needs to be pulled. There is nothing even remotely close to a community consensus to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The conviction was nominated before, but judged too early as it wasn't the sentencing. The previous nom deemed this otherwise ITN-appropriate. --M asem (t) 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So this blurb was approved in another discussion somewhere in the past? This all sounds highly irregular. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, I am neutral on the merits of this nomination. Over the last couple of years ITN seems to have been moving away from what I will call Murder & Mayhem crime stories. On the other hand Canada is not exactly known for this sort of thing. My objection is purely procedural. On which note, I am also not implying any deliberate impropriety. I haven't seen MSGJ around ITN much and they may not be aware that we have a somewhat higher bar for posting blurbs, as opposed to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the pattern was established per WP:SOMEFLOODS which was posted in 5 hours with zero loss of shit. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not see that, but it also looks to have been posted rather too quickly given only two supports. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks more like 35 hours to me. But then maths was never my strong point.  But there is a common theme running through a lot of these premature postings.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed that common thread myself. Is there an appropriate venue to politely discuss this common thread? ghost 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The talkpage here would be a reasonable place to start I guess? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Aye, I would have supported this is well, but that was posted a bit quickly. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I updated the article and nominated it minutes after the sentencing.  I expect either my exuberance to get it listed was contagious or that editors had grown weary of my whining about the earlier (failed) nom.  My apologies if I stressed a volunteer into acting outside established practises.  I'd also like to thank Ad Orientem for their due diligence with the error report. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * as far as I can see, no-one can take issue with your approach here, the nomination was just fine. We do tend to wait more than a couple of hours before posting such items as we allow sufficient time for a consensus to "develop" rather than simply acting after the first two votes are cast (this is sometimes okay for RD when all we're debating is the quality of the target article, but usually for the main ITN stories, we look for both quality and significance).  So in short, you did nothing wrong at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support based upon the previous conversation and the overall merits of the case. This is a high profile serial killer case in a city/country that is not exactly known for them. I have no real stance on the fact this was posted so quick (I don't believe it should be pulled), but maybe in the future it should be held back a few hours to ensure the consensus is still there to post it. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 22:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Folks here were correct to wait for sentencing. It was listed 8–13 February and received more page views than it's likely to get again – 185,000 while on the main page, when it normally gets 400 daily. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan Olszewski

 * Support Not much I can verify, but the few that I did were good. The last section "in pop culture" is uncited. ghost 12:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ghost, can't have an entirely unreferenced section in a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've hidden the unsourced section for now. Are there any other problems? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) International Contact Group on Venezuela

 * Comment. This ran at DYK the other day. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose since I'm not even sure what the "declaration" was, it's hard to understand the significance of either this meeting (which barely a dozen countries attended) or the reluctance of everyone to sign up to the declaration. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it's hard to understand the significance of either this meeting (which barely a dozen countries attended) No problem. Just one minor point of correction, it was 13 countries, but I understand your apprehension. Chetsford (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where I live, even 13 is "barely a dozen". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A bakery? j/k Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Dingell

 * Article should be in great shape after a few minutes. Should we consider a blurb, given he was the longest-serving member of Congress in history? Davey2116 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should get a blurb. He's not a household name, and he was 92 years old in hospice care. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Well referenced article. I don't think he meets the criteria for a blurb which is set very high. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ref 41 needs sorting out (presumably it was a courtesy link?) and the material on Gallo needs citing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , done! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Fifty-nine years is a long time to serve in an elective office, but since he died at 92, four years after retiring, probably not blurb material. Sca (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Committee Assignments section needs a ref but that's not enough to hold up posting. Article is solid and well referenced overall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Emiliano Sala

 * Support looks good, and I haven't seen any issues with the article itself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yeah, now we have confirmation, and the article is good. --M asem (t) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and mark as ready. Also, yes, we go with the date of the announcement as the date of the story when the announcement is more than about 2-3 days after the date of death, as it obviously is in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Robinson

 * Comment: A few sections need a few more references, but otherwise the article does an adequate job covering his baseball career.  Spencer T• C 20:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I'm working on it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of it now? It's not GA quality for sure, but I think everything is sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks for putting that together. Support.  Spencer T• C 21:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks in good shape. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is one sentence in the honour section I've tagged as needing a citation, but it should be pretty easy to source for someone familiar with Baseball. Once that's fixed it should be good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing it out, I had missed that one. That sentence is now sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems fine to me. SirEdimon (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Fully referenced now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There still seems to be a citation needed tag? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , not any more. I cited it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manfred Eigen

 * Support - ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on quality; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull too many of those awards are unreferenced, wasn't ready, shouldn't have been posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you tagged it, has added sources to every award. Would you reconsider marking this as "attention needed"? (I didn't change it myself since I supported it) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better now, thanks. Of course it should not have been posted with so many award claims unreferenced, but thanks to Martin for taking the time and trouble to sort that, without even a sniff of a copyright infringement! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oooh, subtle. Still searching for some YouTube videos, though.... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ... as promised (only 113 to choose from)

(Closed) RD: Yechiel Eckstein

 * Comment. Not got time to check this in detail now, but my immediate thought is that the article appears biased in its presentation because of the large criticism section, while the awards are buried under personal life. The lead is also slender. The personal life needs some clarification -- was he married twice? His son daughter has an article but appears to only be mentioned in the infobox. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Espresso Addict. I have moved the awards to its separate section. removed mention of "first wife" since it is not supported by refs. added a line on daughter. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Espresso Addict, lead is expanded please take a look if this can be supported now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on the talk page in response to your query, . On a closer inspection there's a bit too much reliance on the official obituary at the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. There's a NYT obituary, which I've now linked, which might be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have added better sources as Espresso Addict suggested above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Good to go &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose some dabs in there, and use of unreliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there anything particularly unreliable except the date of birth (now fixed) that you had in mind, ? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The Rambling Man, I went over the refs once again to improve them. Please reconsider the !vote.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have marked it as ready since all the reviewers including MSGJ have now supported this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Dewar

 * Comment. Not yet fully updated; some sourcing needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose still some more sources needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I took care of the last couple of CN tags. Article looks good to go now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's still quite a bit of uncited material under Member of Parliament, as well as a problem with short paragraphs. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per numerous uncited claims in a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rosamunde Pilcher
British author who sold over 60 million novels.
 * Looks good &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the so-called "partial bibliography" section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bibliography is fully sourced now. I've removed the other unsourced material in the text. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mel Tomlinson

 * Support - Indeed ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is already older than the 4th RD posted. See the discussion I've initiated on the talk page about this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: George Klein

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The prose is not the greatest quality, but it seems to have been expanded since TRM commented (although more would still be good) and it is sufficiently sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The expansion has barely improved the description of why the subject is notable. There's considerable vagueness & some confusion in detail eg what's the title of his second book? Also the addition of the mail fraud appears potentially undue weight. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonie Ossowski

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don’t see any issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hakeem al-Araibi

 * Oppose Not significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest withdraw. The incident itself is unlikely to gain support, but this stage is especially unremarkable. ghost 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - interesting story, but nowhere near the significance required for ITN, especially not at this juncture. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the opinions. What happens next? Is the nominator supposed to add (Pulled) to the heading, or is it someone else's job to do this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Otho Marsh Jr.

 * Support - Well sourced.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Emiliano Sala

 * Comment. I'm not opposing this one, but how can this be a recent death? - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn S¡m¡on  17:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Eugen says, he died on 21 January. It's too long ago to be considered a recent death, and the entries currently on the list are all more recent. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of disappeared individuals, we go by the date their death is confirmed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, but actually his death hasn't been confirmed yet. The news is that a body has been sighted in the plane wreckage. They don't even know if it's him or the pilot yet. I suggest we wait until his death is officially announced then. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Premature They saw one body in the plane, but no one has officially confirmed its identity (remember there was a pilot too). I read that we should have an official statement by tomorrow. --M asem  (t) 17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "There are no survivors" - Sky News. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's from the private agency that continued the search for the plane after authorities stopped, but its not the official word. (And I would expect them to have observed two bodies in there before making a statement liek that). Again, we're told to expect an official statement in less than a day, we can wait on the official statemet. --M asem (t) 18:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Premature No official confirmation for his death has been made yet, only 1 body is seen in the plane and no one has confirmed if the body is Sala's or the pilots. The article cannot claim that he is dead without any official confirmation of his death. We will have to wait till it comes. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note His death is also being discussed at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Premature, as per Masem. The questions I raised previously, about the official route to change "disappeared" to "officially dead", will probably evaporate. I suspect we will simply follow an announcement in the press. But it may be several days before lifting the wreckage is even attempted. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - body is confirmed to be that of Sala, nomination is above on today's date. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Matti Nykänen

 * Oppose career section unsourced, article doesn't mention about death or causes. please fix-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The death is now mentioned, although a cause is not officially given. Definetely an important person and one of the greatest in his sport. --Clibenfoart (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just posted before seeing this &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull BLP violation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled Multiple unreferenced claims. Stephen 08:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

El Salvador Election

 * Altblurb to link election article. Also Bukele's image is in image prot queue since this is ITNR. --M asem (t) 19:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - Articles are in bad shape. They need to be greatly improved before going to the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don’t see any issues. AbDaryaee (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the normal target link in these circumstances is the election article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose target should be the election, and that article needs more prose. ghost 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The election article is a stub plus tables, whilst the biography has a big orange tag. Nowhere near ready. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Improve, then support on merit - Needs improvement before it's ready for the main page, but I don't want to see this snow-closed. On its merits alone, I support. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is listed at WP:ITN/R so article quality is the only thing that matters - there is automatic consensus that it merits posting when good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Super Bowl LIII

 * Comment we usually also include the MVP. Also obviously prose description of the game will be required. --M asem (t) 02:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add the MVP once we know who it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)q
 * Wait until a prose summary is added and citation needed tags are answered.  Sounder Bruce  03:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose background section is missing refs --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and : do stop edit warring over the blurb and discuss it here! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, thinks WP:BRD doesn't apply to him. I reverted twice, and yes perhaps I should not have done, but the second time I have a full reason. Stephen's now instated his dispute change three times. Totally absurd behaviour from an experienced admin. Anyway, as I said in my edit summary, we should match the format used in last year's entry, and certainly we shouldn't be pointing a link to Super Bowl LIII when the link text says a different article, Super Bowl. That's an WP:EASTEREGG and is confusing for readers. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. My only comment is that "LIII" is not easily readable by someone unfamiliar with the game &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprised this is not on the Main Page already. In deference to the many people who might not understand "LIII" as Roman numerals - why do they do that? - perhaps "the 53rd Super Bowl"? 213.205.198.144 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Waiting for image to be protected. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Image now protected. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * please can you change the link to include the text LIII (or 53rd if you prefer that) as was originally proposed here and per the discussion above? I was unable to revert for a third time due to being in an edit war, but that's the way we did it last year and I don't see consensus for anything else. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN blurbs never include the year or competition number of an event. There's no need to include it here either; it's obvious that the blurb refers to this year's event (more obvious than the roman numeral!). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Modest Genius - it’s not needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Modest Genius is quite correct. The roman numerals might not be understood by readers. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right.... we never the numerals, except for every single year. Anyway, can we at least put the word "the" into the link, i.e. change it to the Super Bowl so that the link isn't quite so incorrect? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's really weird - how did no-one spot that error in previous years? (Yes I consider it an error.) Anyway, if something was done incorrectly in the past, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to do so, although another admin may do so if they wish. In general, we don't include the year/competition number in other sports postings.  The fact that it may have been done with past Super Bowls doesn't mean it should continue if we don't do it for anything else. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you IF the subject was up for formal discussion. Absent a change being specifically proposed, we shouldn't break from precedent for this event in deference to precedent for the more general category of events. ghost 17:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There are a lot of unsourced paragraphs in the article, including most of the prose summary. This seemed to have been rushed a bit too fast, though I don't blame editors for not being all that enthused about this particular game.  Sounder Bruce  22:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled by User:Amakuru --DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled. I stayed up until 3.30am watching this game, and I have to say I enjoyed it a lot. Outstanding defensive play is just as admirable as free scoring offensive shoot outs, and the tension involved when both sides know that one score could decide the whole game is exciting to watch. User:SounderBruce is correct, though, in that the article does not meet sourcing standards for the main page so I've pulled it for now. Hopefully the issues can be resolved quickly and it can go back up. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a comment, recaps of sporting events do not need to be sourced, in the same manner that we don't require sources for plot summaries of works, as long as nothing interpretative is used (as the event can be re-viewed to confirm) That said, sourcing of the game's events in this case should be very very easy with how much coverage it gets, but it is not required. Other sourcing problems are legitimate though. --M asem (t) 00:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To build upon this, when I update the game summary for the Grey Cup article each year, I usually just use one source for the entire summary. That works fine. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 01:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've considered the arguments above, and have made a few fixes to the article. I'm going to restore it because the most convincing argument is that a game serves as a primary source for itself.  Anybody can watch a recording of the game and see the events unfold.  This is analogous to the way that a book serves as a primary source for its own plot summary.  No secondary source is needed unless there is analysis or opinion.  To that end, I have removed whatever analysis or opinion I could see that didn't have a reference.  For a better explanation, see How_to_write_a_plot_summary. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen Duncan

 * Oppose - All sections are unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SirEdimon can you please take another look and reconsider the !vote, the article as it stands now is fully sourced. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Issues resolved.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on quality. Good job with the sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kristoff St. John

 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter James Edyvean

 * Weak support I'd prefer if it were a bit more expanded / had more references, but its okay --DannyS712 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clive Swift

 * Oppose can't use that fair use image here, and several [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are three [citation needed] tags. Feel free to remove the entry, comment it out for now or even find a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, doing other things, just expressing my opinion. And that fair use image is a copyright failure, so I'm sure you'd like to see that resolved soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I've removed the image and cited the paragraph that was missing inline sources. All looks good now. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * support. Referencing issues have been resolved except for one citation needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Remaining cn's now dealt with. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wade Wilson

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has severe issues with its references. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 23:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See the improvements made since then. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still seeing at least two whole paras without a single inline ref. Maybe more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been referenced by others. IMO (COI noted) its ready, what do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have marked this as "attentioned needed" because no opposition has been expressed since it was greatly improved. I didn't mark it as ready since I'm the nominator --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Looks good to me &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull nope, numerous paragraphs without citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for every paragraph to have citations. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP, and it has masses of unreferenced text. Please pull it, it's an embarrassment and a violation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled. --Tone 09:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All cn tagl have been dealt with (thanks to User:Tecmo). Could this be reposted? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is now older than the oldest item in RD, that's why we cannot repost. But thanks for fixing the reference, the article is better now. --Tone 15:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final

 * Wait until the addition of a prose summary.  Sounder Bruce  16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as I have added a prose summary.  Sounder Bruce  00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news in sports and geopolitics. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still good to go... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still good to go 10 hours later... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) US suspends INF Treaty

 * Comment In the previous nomination it was argued that the better timing would be when Congress decides to withdraw (which seemingly hasn't happened yet). If Pompeo suspends, he may reconsider as well. Brandmeistertalk  15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate how news reports tend to overlook the mechanics of these things... Per Reuters, US is suspending how it will hold up its side of the treaty (eg it's planning on moving NATO forces around against bounds of the treaty, etc.) and will plan to formally withdraw in 6 months should Russia not come to compliance. So no act of Congress is necessary to suspend (that will be needed in 6 months), so this should be a question of the suspension is as significant. Given the way this is being covered, I'd argue this is, as will be if US withdraws in 6months time. --M asem (t) 15:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's alarming. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to report Russia to international agencies and demand third-party inspections, but we can only observe, as usual... Brandmeistertalk  16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now Russia says it suspends the treaty in return, added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  10:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose more sabre-rattling, let's wait until the leaving actually occurs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The United States has not actually left the treaty. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I point out above that yes, this is not the same milestone as Congress okay'ing leaving the treaty; that mark has been set for 6 months from now, and should that happen, that's definitely an ITN. My point is that this is a rather novel change in that the executive is willfully suspending the treaty and will move its forces around in technical violation of it. Now whether that's a milestone for ITN or not, it is a point to be debated, but I will argue this is a significant enough change to be itn-worthy. (outside of article quality which I haven't checked recently). --M asem (t) 22:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support significant milestone, and the leadup to the event made news too. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – More political posturing on the part of what's-his-name? – Sca (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Wait / Support - Wait until it's confirmed, as The Rambling Man and Masem have rightfully pointed out. If it actually happens, it should be posted swimmingly. When the USA and USSR signed the treaty it quite literally went down in history, and it would be significant if the US decided to scrap it. The US has been floating this for a while, but now that it's been announced by the US secretary of state that they are in fact going to do pull out of it, we shouldn't have to wait for too much longer. (Update - though America has not yet pulled out of it, Russia announced they will be developing new missiles, so it makes perfect sense to post it now.) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 Historical event. 1960-s tier Arms Race has just began and people here are arguing whether to post it or not. Jesus. I bet if the Christ made a second coming people here would be voting oppose until he'd be killed again to verify his Godhood, at which point they would say it was already stale and vote oppose anyway. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody questions the importance of it. It's just that neither Trump nor Pompeo even have the power to make or break treaties. He needs the consent of 2/3 of the Senate to do that, and I'll only support a blurb that mentions that the US has only announced its intentions to suspend it. Of course it's important; I'd go as far as to say this paved the way for a "Cold War II." The only objections are based on the fact that the US is still in it. That being said, Russia has responded by doing the same, and Putin actually does have the authority to declare that Russia can and will being developing new missiles (which he has, according to new sources). As a result, I support posting the blurb at this time, provided that the language of the blurb does not inaccurately state that the US suspended it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You deeply misunderstand the nature of what just happened here. Trump didn't leave the treaty, as he has no power to do so, but he SUSPENDED IT FOR 90 days, which he has the power to. The current alt blurb 3 is therefore inaccurate and misleading. Over the course of these 90 days the US will leave the treaty by the means of a senate vote. Only a fool would think the Senate would not vote in favour of it given the red scare-tier climate in the US Openlydialectic (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC) References: New York Times, Associated Press, Sputnik, SCMP Openlydialectic (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Only a fool would think the Senate would not vote in favour of it" is obviously WP:CRYSTAL. He needs 60 votes. He doesn't have 60 republicans. Maybe he will in fact get enough people from the opposition party to support his proposal, and maybe he won't. The fact of the matter is there's not been a vote on it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but the fact to the matter is: Trump has already suspended the treaty, and that's what we absolutely have to put in the blurb. If the blurb just states that the US announced plans to withdraw from it without mentioning the fact that they've already suspended it, that blurb would be highly misleading Openlydialectic (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would move to support, but only if a suitably succinct blurb was offered. Right now, what we have is horseshite.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're fully able to write one yourself (or at the very least give an idea of how we can make them less "horseshite" as you put it) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support any of the altblurbs, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * a version of altblurb III. Suggested improvements to wording welcome &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * don't you think it's heavily misleading to post the blurb stating that Russia suspended the treaty without mentioning the fact that America suspended it too? That's... just... Radio Free Europe-tier work. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your last sentence but I did say I was open to improved wording. I'm not a fan of the current wording, especially with the double "announces" &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The United States suspends the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In a mirror response, Russia suspends the treaty as well. emijrp (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This. But I guess that would show the US in a bad light, so that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about: Both the United States and Russia suspend the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support something like that. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated accordingly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why we're trying to diminish that the US started this. They suspending INF over claims Russia violated it, and Russia suspended in response. The order of the events is significant to the story here.the first altblurb is pretty much the right one (less a few words). --M asem (t) 14:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to 2019 when much of Wikipedia has already been compromised by the US/Transatlantic special interests. You might wanna look up the articles about the White Helmets and the Wikileaks too. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy Hardy

 * A marker for now. Mostly OK, but needs some work on refs - particularly the filmography - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, all reffed up to date, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks OK - great work SC.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support appears to be ready to post. --LukeSurlt c 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready (and very sad news.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)