Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 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.

(Posted) January 2019 North American cold wave

 * Oppose brr, it's cold here too, and very hot in Australia. That's "weather" for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's -66°F windchill at the latitude of Central France, the all-time mainland US record is -70. It also got cold enough to freeze average antifreeze, 100 proof liquor and mercury thermometers, at the latitude of Paris. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But there's an article for the North American cold wave, and no article for a UK cold wave nor for the Australian heat wave. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See "systemic bias". I wouldn't post any of them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with The Rambling Man - this is not globally significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , from above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Brigade Piron is noting that weather extremes are affecting the globe and this is not any more significant and therefore in no way more newsworthy than any of the other weather events, and hence is not ITN-worthy. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's best (a) to let Brigade Piron speak for him or herself, and (b) to not worry about "global significance" in an ITN nom. Cheerio. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unneeded advice, as usual, but this isn't notable in any sense. It got cold, people died.  Big deal.  Not newsworthy, and yet another example of systemic bias just because it happened in the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do agree with The Rambling Man. I obviously agree that an incident affecting a single country (major political events, natural disasters, sports tournaments etc) can be worthy of ITN. But many countries encounter "cold snaps"/heatwaves from time to time: the example of the current heatwave in Australia is arguably more notable. I wouldn't phrase it in those terms, but I think is right that this is considered notable because it happened in the US. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news globally and the number of deaths are significant. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is very thin but it's in the news, and no different from other "extreme weather" events which are routinely posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Once in a generation temperatures, significant global coverage, serious health warnings, deaths; this is a front page story. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the quality of the article, but support on noteworthiness. The article does not contain much more than basic facts and contains next to nothing about the effects on Canadian cites. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements This is not a typical bad winter storm. There have been records negative temps due to both the cold and wind chill, and there's other unusual phenomena happening. The article does need improvement (not a mention of the polar vortex which is causing this) and I 'll try to add to in a bit. --M asem (t) 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support News globally, the quality is not that great, but should be sufficient for the ITN. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I, a Minnesota native, must oppose this as too long after the fact. Forecasts indicate temps will moderate after Feb. 1. – Sca (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It got a little chilly. We wouldn't be posting this if it happened in the Ukraine. 107.77.237.181 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 10 degrees below "mercury freezes" is not just a little chilly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I was growing up in Minn., we used to refer to, say, -20F (-28C) as "a bit nippy out there." Sca (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What did you say when it was 10 degrees below the temperature at which mercury freezes? (-48) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Coldest I was ever out in was -34F (-37C) one New Year's Eve in Mpls. Had I said something about that, it would have been, "Colder than a xxxxxx xxx!" – Sca (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news and the article is now good enough to be posted. There's significance if you count deaths and disruption of transit/commerce. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's pretty darn cold, all over the news, people died in something that isn't a school shooting. Juxlos (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "It's cold" isn't news. There are several other colder places in the world too... - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's colder in the U.S. than it is in Antarctica. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to try to unmine support for posting this, but because it is summer in the southern hemisphere, there are plenty of times w/o a polar vortex that it has been colder in the midwest than Antarctica; the point though is that those past events are for brief periods, not for days-long events like this polar vortex. Its the intensity and duration that is of why this was a vastly unusual system. --M asem (t) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, And? I've already said it's cold and it's not unusual for places outside the (Ant)Artic circles to be colder than within them. It's still not really ITN worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh good point, I forgot about the hemispheres when I wrote that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's like describing a hurricane as "it's rainy" or a flood as "it's moist". Using dismissive language doesn't make the extensive, reliable sources covering this event disappear, you know.  -- Jayron 32 16:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "dismissive" in what I have said - I have already agreed it's cold; what more do you want in making statements of the obvious: "it's freezing"? That doesn't make it ITN-worthy in my view, aside from the fact that it's the systematic bias of wanting to have it in because it happens to be in the US. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Significance, like quality, is not a binary, and "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." I'd be fine with posting this, but I think we'd need an above-par article. ghost 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Now 21 people died. Has been on top news on BCC for quite sometime. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A caution: while 21 deaths have been preliminary tied to the weather, only eight (when I last checked) were 100% confirmed strictly due to the weather, the others were still under investigation for cause. --M asem (t) 14:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. When its colder in Chicago than in Antarctica, that's not just weather, it is an extreme weather event. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as not just very cold but unprecedented. (I would also support a combined blurb with the Australian wildfires as those are just as significant.) -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's winter and cold weather is normal for this period of the year in North America. The last year's cold wave is well documented, which doesn't make this even an extremely rare and unexpeced occurrence. I'd be surprised and might have considered to support had a cold wave brought snow in June but in January it's just a run-of-the-mill event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this year's so-called Arctic vortex wasn't exactly "normal," though temps as low as -30F certainly aren't unprecedented in the Upper Midwest. But as noted above, it's no longer timely. Temp at 8 a.m. (CST) this morning in Minneapolis was above zero F. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While the vortex may be over, reporting on the aftermath of such an event in the days that follow is normal for ITN. --M asem (t) 14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in most cases the shelf life of weather news is quite short. Sca (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. Even we, here on ITN, are just showcasing encyclopedic articles that are relevant to current events. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It was colder at the latitude of Paris than it's ever been in any major city of European Russia or its border with Siberia (except Archangelsk, 1.4F warmer than that but colder than Murmansk (Arctic Ocean port) record at 69°N). Also colder than it's ever been in Vladivostok, the capitals of Greenland, Mongolia and Alaska, largest city in Alaska and 1.9F above the Omsk, Siberia record (far inland). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Being covered extensively by the proper, reliable sources for as an unusual weather event (records being broken, unusual numbers of deaths, etc,). Those sources don't go away by using dismissive language to describe the event.  I can say of a hurricane "That's rain for you" or "Well, it rains every summer".  That's why all we should do is go to sources; anyone can add their own dismissive language to their vote, but that dismissive language does not meaningfully add to the discussion.  Providing evidence from the sources to support your vote does, and sources, as already cited, clearly show that this is a weather event worth reporting on.  Since our article is also of sufficient quality for the main page, I see no reason to prevent this from being seen by Wikipedia readers.  The article could probably use some expansion, but it's not so bad as to keep it off of the main page.  -- Jayron 32 16:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the issue that is important to stress is that the situation was caused by an unusual phenomenia, a polar vortex, which most meteorologists are attributed to global warming. This is not just a jet stream shifting to bring cold air down. Now we can't get into all that in the blurb, I tried to write that into the article, but I think we need to highlight at least the polar vortex part. --M asem (t) 16:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the oppose rationales make no sense. If it reached 0 degrees celsius in a country like Singapore, that's very much newsworthy, because these temperatures would be super unusual for a tropical country. The same applies here. Who cares if -10 degrees is commonplace in Siberia in the winter - that it's not common in midwestern US is good enough. Banedon (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Who cares if -10 degrees is commonplace in Siberia in the winter" - that's a bit of a straw man! While it is cold, it's not exceptional. Minneapolis shows a record low of -41. I think this is only being considered because of the systematic bias of the US being involved. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah it's being considered because of the record cold temps in the region where it's taking place, the unusual polar vortex, the death toll, and the media coverage. If you could just let me know where WP:ITN stipulates considering "systemic bias" then we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Record temps? There are a couple of localised ones, but reading through the article, many of the locations are not recording them as such. As it is the temperatures are not "record" or even close. Unless you want to have a "Out-of-date news" section, this is all rather moot now. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We routinely rush barely adequate disaster stubs to the main page based purely on body count but the "us-centric" story gets held up until it's stale. "Systemic bias" indeed. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the record length of having sub-average temperatures, not temporary points of really really low temperatures. I'd also add that if this polar vortex ended up over Europe or Northern Asia, with similar long-term sub-below average temps, which led to deaths/etc. then we would likely post it too. The polar vortex dropping out of the Arctic circle is a rare phenomenon. --M asem (t) 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was second coldest day in Chicago on record (out of like 50,000 days) and missed being the coldest Chicago high temperature known to man by literally minutes. It was under the record high temperature for over 24 hours in a row but the over 24 hours started about 12:15am. Peak cold anomaly came minutes too late. Global warming and urban heat island is gradually making the record low lows untouchable so you can't expect that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting the second-coldest day in Chicago on record == systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is within 4 Fahrenheit of the mainland US wind chill record systemic bias? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, same same. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two thousand two hundred (2,200) words of talk about the weather of three or four days ago. Sca (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Only the weather in America. The rest of the globe is just getting on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Illinois had the coldest low in state history. But still bias I assume. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If Norwich had the coldest low in its history, I doubt this demographic would find consensus to post.  Because it's not the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Norwich already has gotten more than it's share of gratuitous publicity. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Illinois has the acreage of England and Wales so that would be a more fair comparison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the size that counts... it's the bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 2019 South Sulawesi floods an article 507 words long about a flood during the wet season in a tropical country is posted in less than 36 hours with just two supports - yet January 2019 North American cold wave is being held up with the usual shrieks of "systemic bias". It's such obvious bullshit that it ought not be taken seriously -- it is, however, and effective means of erecting walls of text and bickering about a story until it becomes stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - News globally, unusual & record-breaking weather event, at least 10 confirmed deaths, estimates as high as 21 deaths. (It's not even uncommon for us to post stories with fewer casualties associated.) I find a lot of the oppose !votes quite fallacious; "it's cold here too and hot in other places" doesn't change that it's exceptional for Chicago to be colder than Antarctica. It's normal for 21+ deaths attributed to uncommon tragic events to get posted, so I don't see why deaths attributed to a polar vortex and -70F wind chills are suddenly to be regarded as unimportant. I'm not expecting a consensus to develop, but I have to admit my frustrations with the "ITN is full of systemic American bias" crowd when a number of said crowd-members often !vote against stories from parts of the world that are seldom covered in ITN. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article now says it reached -56F at 47°N which is almost the low altitude mainland US record and colder than it's ever been in many of the bigger Siberian cities like Novosibirsk, Omsk, Ufa, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. People are dying. It's freezing here. It's never been this cold. This is certainly notable. This is certainly in the news. Let's get this on there, please. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted somewhat reluctantly. If this were a little closer I'd have joined the opposition. But there is a solid consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – What about the terrible weather in the UK, where "snow and ice are bringing traffic to a standstill" – aren't we going to post that? It's actually going on as we speak. (Meanwhile, forecast high today in Minneapolis is 37F/3C.) Sca (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not as important. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You could nominate it, if you can find an article. Banedon (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The above was meant as an indirect comment on the posting of the (stale) U.S. cold wave blurb. Sca (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if we'd posted it when it was a tiny stub with two supports after a day and a half like the floods in Sulawesi it'd not have been stale, would it? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's obvious what went on here and I, for one, am glad that the clearly notable blurb was posted despite the very dubious opposition. Lepricavark (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harold Bradley

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced or incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has only one reference. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ingvald Godal

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierre Nanterme

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) University of Farmington scam

 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this is a routine law enforcement action.  The article is also very slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article somewhat. Will try and expand it more. Does Wikipedia have any other articles related to fake universities which I could maybe link in the see also section? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Sorry but just not the stuff of ITN in terms of significance. Sca (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nominator requests this to be withdrawn. After spending more time with this article I understand why the above two editors are saying oppose. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Douglas Myall

 * Comment no, it's older than the currently oldest posted RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Stewart Adams

 * Oppose - for now. Too much unsourced at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SchroCat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has issues with its references. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Referencing is not the best, but is still reasonably good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela

 * Oppose The protests are a much more pressing issue in the situation and its questionable if we're posting that over the Ongoing. The announcement of a conference that may or may not do anything is far too iffy for ITN posting. --M asem (t) 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I would agree, however, as I said, I think any multilateral conference is inherently newsworthy. If this were a conference of major regional powers to negotiate postal rates I think it would be newsworthy. Multilateral conferences at the executive and ministerial levels are relatively rare occurrences and the fact it has to do with a current event (Venezuela) is secondary; whether it actually accomplishes something is, IMO, tertiary. Chetsford (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We rarely post when the G8/G20 conferences happen unless something of merit actually comes of the conference itself. There might be some action from this one but we'll have to wait and see, and that's why its not really ITN just yet, and emphasizing it over everything else going on in VZ would be an odd bias. --M asem (t) 06:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the ongoing protests are more notable. If the ongoing protests are posted, then this would be unnecessary; if they aren't posted, then posting this would seem out of place. Banedon (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Premature (slated for Feb. 7) and in any case of doubtful effect or significance. Sca (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody on the internatiobal scene cares what either of these 2 countries have to say. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Chetsford (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is far less important than the situation itself. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I may be in favor of posting a specific ongoing link after February 7, IF AND ONLY IF, the article on the conference is updated with sufficient daily updates on the goings-on of the conference. The announcement of such a conference does not seem to be the right time to post the article.  The posting of the article should be when we have actual information on what the conference accomplished.  I would say it's much more useful to post then when the conference is happening.  -- Jayron 32 20:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Brexit

 * Remove on the procedural grounds - the last essential update was two weeks ago. This is not what ongoing is for. --Tone 14:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove the last substantive addition was January 21. The article fails the most important criteria for ITN in general, and also ongoing in particular, that it covers recent news.  9 days old is not recent.  -- Jayron 32 14:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove The articles requires daily substantial updates to qualify for an Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - Progress has stalled.--128.227.122.46 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Tone 16:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-removal comment – This situation brings to mind a fantasy tale by Michael Ende, the original title of which was Die unendliche Geschichte. If only an end were (endlich!) in sight for the current political fantasy. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Restore to Ongoing, possibly with a link to daughter article Meaningful vote which deals with the most recent events, or some similar fix?' - This was removed from ongoing on grounds that it had not been substantially updated for 9 days, and was thus out of date ('9 days old is not recent' is how it was put on 30 January 2019). But a quick look at its history shows that it has in fact been updated almost daily throughout that period. But the article is so large that the updates about the most recent events are in its daughter Article Meaningful vote which has been extensively updated to cover the most recent votes (which were on 29 January 2019, and have a whole section in Meaningful vote, which also already has another section dealing with the next scheduled vote due on 14 February). As such it seems to me that it should not have been removed from Ongoing, and should probably be restored, possibly with an additional link to the daughter article such as Brexit (including Meaningful vote) or some other such fix (either here or in the article). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, looking at the article history, this was the last substantive edit to the article. Every other edit since then consists of minor tweaks to wording or phrasing, or small insignificant updates with little new information.  After that 1000+character update, the next largest update was this 400 character addition, which discusses an event from December (so not current news), the next largest was this one uncited addition added on January 24 of barely 100 characters, and the NEXT biggest update was this 81 character clarification.  Everything else is much smaller than even that.  There is literally no information in the article which is newer than 15 January, 2019, which was the Parliamentary vote to reject May's deal.  There has been nothing else newer than that.  At all.  So, every 100+ character change to the article (which is the length of a medium-sized sentence) has either not been any new information, or it has been new information to the article, but about old stuff (December or Earlier), and regardless, there's nothing reported in the text newer than January 15.  Seriously, dude, you can't just claim something is true when every human on the planet could just look to see that it isn't.  You can't say "it has in fact been updated almost daily throughout that period"  It has not, except for meaningless additions that do not qualify as substantive, recent information.  Next time, actually check before you make such statements, because you know someone else is also checking.  Like we all did above.  Before we all voted.  Which is why we all voted to remove it.  -- Jayron 32 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did check before I made my statements. What I wrote above was that the article has been updated daily but that all the updates relating to the most recent events are in the daughter article Meaningful vote, which is why I suggested that some fix in relation to that might be desirable, and why I put a question mark at the end of my suggestion. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a different article. If you want to propose a new article for the main page, start a new discussion.  We're being asked here on the limited question of whether or not a link to the article titled Brexit is appropriate for the main page "ongoing" line.  You may well be right that we should post a link to the article Meaningful vote, but if so, such a request gets lost here because that's not what this discussion is about.  Please, if you do want us to link Meaningful vote from the main page, please start a new thread and make a proposal so that we can fix the problem.  -- Jayron 32 13:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I may try it later, but probably not (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:BNO, etc), tho anybody else who wanted to have a go would almost certainly get my support (or at least they would if they let me know about it). Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. You don't have to.  But that just means it isn't going to get done.  -- Jayron 32 13:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. But, if so, that probably just means nobody else is interested, in which case it's probably not worth doing. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Ingram

 * Oppose far too much unreferenced material for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work . The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple issues: referencing, style and the text itself. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks quite different now, good work. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -, , , sorry to ping you people. I think I fixed all, or at least most, of the referencing issues. If some of you could check it, I would be very happy. I'm willing to fix any refs issue that still exist.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Other appearances needs more refs, as does Filmography and the Academy/Golden Globe award nominations.  But much better than when I last looked, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the references is dead. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Fixed the dead ref and added the missing refs.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment marked as ready, good to go, let's not let this great effort go to waste admins, get on with promoting this ASAP please. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed this from ready to attention needed because it is stale, but it was also marked as ready before becoming stale, so it may be worth posting it for a bit --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it serious? No admin will post it? Even though it has been ready for 12 hours?--SirEdimon (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Re-opening I re-opened this after 's closing as "stale". It seems the oldest RD of Ingvald Godal is actually 28 Jan, not 31 Jan as was recently changed at the article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Sorry I did not notice this earlier &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuelan protests

 * Oppose There's already a link to the Presidential Crisis article on the main page, so no need to add it a second time, and any information about the protests themselves is either already in that article or could be added to it. I don't see anything to be gained here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the nomination is not exclusively because of the presidential crisis, if other editors wish it can be removed from it. The article of the protests includes more details about the movement, while the article of the presidential crisis is way too long for a reader that only wishes to focus on reading about the protests. Last but not least, the blurb is to emphasize the current unrest in the country. An uninformed person would think that things are going smoothly in Venezuela, while there currently are nationwide protests, lootings and deaths. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The protest article should not be separate from the presidential crisis article. The situations are too interlinked to talk about one w/o the other. --M asem (t) 18:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just like the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis and the 2017 Venezuelan protests, but the still have enough notability on their own to have their own articles. This wave of protests started yesteday, so it should be given time to see how the events develop. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Added alt blurb to emphasize death toll, which is the stated reason for having a blurb as well as ongoing. Significant update. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The three key things going on in VZ are all too important to emphasize one over the other. Ongoing is the best solution for a situation like this. --M asem (t) 16:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove from ongoing, add as blurb. Items go directly to ongoing, as per the statement on WP:ITN, if "these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." That's not the case here. Banedon (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/update: Deaths rose to 28. I insist on the importance of the situation and strongly advice its posting as blurb. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb just saying "presidential crisis" (or constitutional crisis) may make people who don't click on the article think that it's a civil debate/war of words, or that's there's votes like the two PM disputes in the UK in the last few months. But 28 people dead? Over 200 more injured? At least 70 "arrested"/disappeared? Makes the situation more poignant to people sat comfortably at home with free wifi and personal safety. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb1 - deserves a blurb per Banedon and Jamez42 and Kingsif (if 28 people were killed in protests over Brexit or Trump's shutdown, we wouldn't oppose a blurb just because these items are already in Ongoing despite Ongoing making no mention of 28 dead; indeed we'd quite likely have a blurb if just 2 protesters were killed there). Altblurb1 is much better than the proposed blurb (which suggests the presidential crisis is over when it isn't). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Masem. Such developments should be covered in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. – Sca (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Venezuela is well known at this point for fatal protests, but 28+ dead is notable regardless. Article is quite short but passable. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Filled out the 2019 Venezuelan protests page more Kingsif (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 28 deaths and counting is obviously notable enough. However, I think the presidential crisis article should be kept in ongoing regardless. Davey2116 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I support that the crisis article is kept in ongoing too. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I currently make it 6-3 in favour of a blurb (provided I count the nominator as a Support). 6-3 is exactly the 2-to-1 supermajority usually deemed to constitute a consensus, but presumably a few more !votes either way might help to clarify whether there really is consensus or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, keep this in the ongoing. There is already an ongoing item regarding Venezuela in the ITN, and this kind of information is more appropriate for ongoing. There are important and fairly dramatic things related to the current crisis happening in Venezuela every day right now, and that's going to continue for a while. If something bigger happens (e.g. Maduro resigns or flees the country or the crisis is concluded in some other way), a blurb would be appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb mostly per Masem. Their are two comments above that suggest that we are underselling the events. "Crisis" is a very strong (but appropriate) word to be used by a site interested in maintaining a neutral POV. Simply on a point of order, ongoing is not subordinate to a blurb. Perhaps we could amend the phrasing for the ongoing - "Crisis in Venezuela" ? ghost 14:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The underselling comes from the fact that Brexit and the government shutdown can also be called crises, but if mass protests resulting in so many deaths happened in relation to those, that would be a separate story given a blurb, no? Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, other stuff exists - some crises are worse than others. Right now we have 3 mass death events up there; imagine how ridiculous it'll look when we inevitably juxtapose them with a snooker game (checks schedule) ...sorry, Handball! You're phrasing of "given a blurb" again enforces the idea that a blurb is more important/better than ongoing. If that were true, I would support the blurb. But I won't support having an ongoing entry AND a blurb that is a component of that ongoing event. ghost 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the phrasing was bad, but I don't mean to say a blurb is "better", indeed I meant it there to say that the story would be treated as separate to the overall event in the case of e.g. Brexit, and so not treated as an ongoing event or part of an ongoing story, and would instead be given a blurb. If we treat this as a separate story, which I imagine a few dozen deaths at Brexit protests would be to Brexit, it would surely warrant a blurb Kingsif (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * your comments below suggest you might support a blurb? (Or am I misreading an attempt to get better quality discussion?) Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: events have moved on since this nomination, with e.g. some international recognition of Guaido and ultimatums being issued by EU countries. The protests are just part of a bigger story. I think it's worth seriously considering upgrading the ongoing entry to a blurb, but the one proposed above is not a suitable summary of the situation. Time to close this and start a new nomination that encompasses the whole crisis? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly NOT time for a new nom. A few more international recognitions are definitely not blurbworthy. The only question is whether the 28 deaths are blurbworthy. I happen to think they are, but we are currently (6 supports if including nominator, 5 opposes) at least 4 !votes short of the minimum required for a 2 to 1 consensus, and no new !votes for well over 24 hours, so if it's time for anything, it would seem to be time to consider closing due to lack of a realistic prospect of consensus for a blurb. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Venezuela is an ongoing situation, snd 28+ dead is notable regardless.I think the Article is passable. AbDaryaee (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have bumped this to 29 Jan. because articles specifically naming, highlighting the protests and number of deaths were released by multiple outlets on this day, rather than the crisis in general, in English and Spanish. (CNN), (The Guardian), for example. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - per deaths, per international and national coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support unlike the turgid US shutdown, this is actually still in the news, still relevant, still encyclopdic and still worthy of posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment US to send 5000 soldiers to Columbia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Last I heard "all options are on the table" Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready. Opinions on the most suitable blurb are sought. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of blurb, the part about the children being arrested is unnecessary (it smacks of "Won't someone think of the children"), barring any international complaints directly about this. --M asem (t) 00:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point on international complaints, will remove the expansion from blurb even though it was only intended as a highlight of the flagrant human rights abuses. Kingsif (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer ALT1 for simplicity & accuracy. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Image from article on protests added to prot queue. --M asem (t) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a strong consensus to post this, although we seem to be inching in that direction. I have removed the "Ready" tag for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just counted, and not including the oppose below this that's unsigned and has unclear reasoning, it's 9 Support to 5 Oppose. That's only 1 off the supermajority. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the supports have not weighed in on maintaining the duplicate ongoing item, which is the main point of contention of the opposes. I think the best thing to do is pull the ongoing and post a blurb that mentions the deaths being a part of the larger crisis. Then when the blurb rolls off we can repost the ongoing. ghost 15:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This can be handled at best in the Venezuela presidential crisis that is currently an active item in ITN
 * Oppose the protests that occurred the 23rd are stale. I'm not sure what other blurb is even being suggested and voted on.  The ongoing issues are best handled in Ongoing.  As a side note, the articles could use several more contributors to copy-edit, monitor the talk page, etc. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only two blurbs newer than the 23rd, so it is not stale. ghost 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article has been merged to refer to the event in its entirety, not to the isolated January 23rd incident. 174.113.101.67 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if you blurb it, pull it from ongoing, then if the ongoing target is still getting updates you can put it back to ongoing when the protests are about to expire off. There is no good reason to have the same event ongoing and as a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Marking ready for post blurb and pull from ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Still no clear consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. More appropriate to keep this in ongoing for now. ZettaComposer (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you explain that reasoning? Especially since the dispute over who is president is the article in ongoing, which is not the article about the protests. It's not actually in ongoing at the moment, and I'm sure any other event when upwards of 40 people were killed with lots of international coverage would be given a blurb. Or are you suggesting we add the protests article to ongoing? Of course, protests rarely means so many deaths and arrests, so in this instance would a blurb be recommended to get the real news (i.e. casualty figures) in the box, before being added to ongoing? Also pinging, asking if you can consider this kind of reasoning to discount all the "oppose" votes that simply say it's in ongoing or old news. Because the big international reports on the deaths came out yesterday, and the protest article is not in ongoing. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO those are legitimate rationals to oppose. If you believe that recent developments should cause opposing editors to reconsider I suggest pinging them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Old news, maybe if the comments are a few days old (5 day threshold and before new reports) but opposing on the basis it's in ongoing? The article in question and topic of the blurb are protests, and the article in ongoing is the presidential crisis. Those are two distinct things, so this hasn't been in ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Until the standoff between Maduro and Guaidó changes in some significant way, presaging victory by one or the other, this belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I firmly agree that there's nothing of blurb substance in the Maduro-Guaidó standoff. Lots of words and no action at the moment. But, separate to the political rhetoric, over 40 people have died. Could you (genuinely) give some idea of why you (and maybe the other opposes on this basis) don't see them as separate things? Yes, nothing has really progressed diplomatically, and the blurb in no way touches on the subject. Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a process rather than a single event like bombing or a disaster, which despite the number of casualties makes it more an Ongoing topic. However, there may be arguments on both sides of this question. Sca (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion What if we were to add the protests to Ongoing? That is, modify the current ongoing to be "Venezuelan presidential crisis and related protests", since it seems like the protests will continue to go on as long as there's a crisis in place. --M asem (t) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not going to give a vote, because I'm torn between "current protests are an ongoing nightmare" and the fact that adding it to ongoing could set a precedent to keep Venezuelan protests in ongoing forever. Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Forever is a long time. – Sca (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The protests would only stay in ongoing as long as the presidential crisis is in ongoing, or that the protests are actually going at the size and scope of the last week. VZians have seem to be constantly protesting for several years, but the turnout of the protestors was much significantly larger this week. --M asem (t) 03:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Varoujan Garabedian

 * Weak oppose mostly okay but needs proper copyediting from natural English speaker perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed it up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * looks okay &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) PG&E Bankruptcy

 * Oppose would be well-suited to another part of the main page. But not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The bankruptcy is a leading business story today, and it's unique because the company was murdered by lawsuits instead of negligent mismanagement. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Company was notoriously, profoundly negligent. They may well get charged with negligent homicides. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I sure hope they do. That might be a better ITN story than Chapter 11 though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the good ol' USA. But not elsewhere.  It's more meh than wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Multiple unsourced sections. "On January 15, 2019 PG&E does not intend" is also a good indicator. Spengouli (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nothing earth-shaking. This is just a Chapter 11 filing, which means the company will stay in biz & reorganize, paying creditors at least a percentage of their claims. Two days after peaking up 14% at $14.10 on the day of filing, it was trading Jan. 31 around $13 – still an increase from pre-filing prices in the $12 range. Sca (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Fernandes

 * Support - Well sourced article.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs more references in the controversy section, amongst other areas. Stephen 04:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Stephen Thanks for the review, more refs added.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good condition.-Nizil (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Energy in Germany

 * Oppose not in the news, pure crystal balling, revisit in 2038. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * news news news It's all over it. What did you mean, exactly about balls? ~ R.T.G 16:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We can post it when it really happens. The conclusion of a commission is really not ITN material.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First, it has to be signed into law by Germany's PM. Second, a deadline that is 19 years out is one that is going to be subject to delays and the like depending on how the politics shift in the interim. Further and more to what TRM says, that that will actually happen in 2038 is definitely something we should not assume will happen by WP:NOT. --M asem (t) 17:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not just about 2038, it's a current plan of action, not a future single predicted date. And it was a massive meeting of scientists, politicians, etc. etc. Out of hand and left with, dead, dead, dead, head, of state, dead... You can't have that, I'm sorry. It's one thing if you couldn't help it. This is the other thing. IT meets CRYSTAL. At least the first phase of these events are almost guaranteed to happen and the meeting itself was of top notability. It would be a world event in the USA. You'd not be able to keep it off ITN if it was the USA. Germany outproduces the USA. Over here in Europe, this is a main event, fact. ~ R.T.G 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we'll see what happens in 2038. We're not going to report an "aim" of one country here at English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Doesn't translate into action. 128.227.122.46 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:NOT. This has not happened yet, it might not happen by 2038, there is no guarantee that it might ever happen. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This plan could easily fail. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) FaceTime

 * Oppose apps have bugs. Apps get fixed.  Not newsworthy here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM. --M asem (t) 16:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apple phones are not safe without even using them. That's an urgent current event. It's news. It's better than dead dead dead for weeks. (expletives) ~ R.T.G 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See above, apps have bugs, apps get fixed. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - missing refs and a substandard update. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose When we say "ITN is not a news ticker" this is the kind of story we mean.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Huawei

 * Oppose we don't post indictments, especially of non-notable individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huawei is farthest from non notable. ~ R.T.G 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I said the individuals. Please read my response. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read that. Um. Huawei is farthest from non notable, and is considered a person by law if that helps you.. Did you know that Mr Man? ~ R.T.G 17:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you at all, perhaps it's a language barrier thing. Your proposed blurb talks about non-notable employees. That's all I said. And as we know, we don't post news stories here about accusations. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry pal, what does it matter if the employees are notable if Huawei is notable and it's about Huawei? Most lab technicians are not famous. ~ R.T.G 17:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not your pal. These "charges" are fascinating, I'm sure, but not ITN-worthy.  We post convictions almost exclusively.  So see you when that "happens".  Cheers now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure you are. ~ R.T.G 18:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I was considering posting this - but in the scope of the altblurb, since these are formal charges. While there's still a trial, it is affecting China-US relationships. --M asem (t) 16:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, darn something for sure. ~ R.T.G 17:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I was on the edge of nominating this, but as long as someone else thinks this may be ITN, its worthwhile to explore if others think it appropriate. The Huawei story has been bubbling in the news for several months, this is likely the first concrete action to be taken. --M asem (t) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And we don't post such "charges" as you well know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sort of new here, MR Man so I would like you to point me to the discussion. ~ R.T.G 17:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem can help you there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality the big orange tag says it all. Major story, and the indictments did in fact happen and are being reported by reliable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No-one is doubting that, we don't post "charges" though, as you well know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the story is being covered extensively in high quality, appropriate news sources the article quality is simply not good enough to put on the main page. There needs to be a lot of work to address the problems already noted in the article before this is MP ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think we generally post countries leveling criminal charges against other countries. It doesn't exactly equate to UN sanctions. 128.227.122.46 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides

 * Question What on earth does being gay have to do with serial killings? And how does one even quantify "most prolific gay serial killer in Canada"? Even if he's gay and targeting gay men, he's still just a sick serial killer. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd venture "nothing" in answer to your question. The real point is that he's the most prolific serial killer in Canadian history, I think.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's meant to mean that he exclusively killed gay men, though it appears true that he is also gay. I'm fine with removing that part.  Robert Pickton almost certainly killed more people but was only convicted for six murders; Clifford Olson confessed to 11 murders (List of serial killers by country).  So McArthur is not the biggest serial killer in the country's history (at present, investigations are  ongoing), but he is for Toronto, the country's largest city. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait We generally post such crimes on sentencing, which is set to be heard next week. Agree with above points that pointing out the person is gay is absolutely unnecessary in the blurb. --M asem (t) 23:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * People are looking for the article now. Yesterday's page views broke 20,000, the highest it's ever been.  If the whole point of this is to help direct readers to current event articles, why wait?  Also, I expect that sentencing will take a while, as many affected people are going to want to make victim impact statements, and many of these will have to go through translators. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentencing may take a while but not on the order of months, and we try to avoid posting multiple entries on the same topic in short periods of time. And while ITN is not driven by pageviews, the fact that 20,000 views a day are happening means people are finding the content without it being on the front page. --M asem (t) 14:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. If it matters, the judge said in court that he will receive a (mandatory) life sentence.  Unfortunately, the attention that the article is getting is making it less stable, and I can't guarantee that I'll have it in shape when sentencing does occur, so I'm feeling a little anxious (I've been at this for several months since an earlier attempt at nominating it). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kim Bok-dong

 * Weak oppose the writing needs work, it's not particularly encyclopedic in tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mourad Medelci

 * Weak support brief, just beyond stub, but what's there is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's probably crossed the stub line, but only just barely.  It would be nice if it were expanded with more useful information so that readers got a better understanding of his life's work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient coverage of political career. At this point, it's just a prose list of his various positions, without any information about what he accomplished or tried to do in those roles.  Spencer T• C 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , four editors think this is good enough (just) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO the nomination should have run longer than 8 hours, given the number of weak supports and identification of pretty fixable issues. (Granted I am the sole oppose.)  Spencer T• C 05:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Denmark world champions in men's handball

 * Oppose almost zero prose, nothing covering the final at all other than the scoreline. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is little more than a collection of tables. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Also, lack of significance: This tournament has been criticized in German media as having been over-hyped. Sca (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, Susmuffin. There's nothing there.  I would support if the prose in the article was significantly expanded to include a reasonable amount of text describing the tournament and the final in some detail.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yup, there's no prose content. A sea of tables does not qualify for ITN. I will support if the article gains multiple fully-referenced paragraphs describing the events of the tournament and the play in the final. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Magowan

 * Support looks satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - quality good enough, read for main page --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Jolo Cathedral bombings

 * Support This is a major incident, It portrays conflict between religions at the same time being a major terrost incident in the south east asia. Its also trending in all major news agencies Shadychiri (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article. (Two sources added.) – Sca (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The sources in the article are sufficient for expansion. w umbolo   ^^^  20:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we want more information from mainline Eng.-lang. RSs? The more sources the better. Sca (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Details from BBC and others are still sparse, but Islamic State has claimed responsibility. I've updated to reflect that. --M asem (t) 01:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose More bad news. It's depressing. This department is giving undue weight to death and distasters. There's more happening in the world besides murder and mayhem. On a per capita basis, violence is down lower than ever. But you wouldn't know that from the news being reported on Wikipedia's Main Page. You are turning the Main Page into a perpetual nightmare. You should present some hope to offset the despair. And there is lots of in the world, and many good events to report. In science, technology, the arts and humanities, culture, and health. Where are the news reports on those?????? Please report the events of the world proportionately as Wikipedia policy requires. Thank you.   &mdash; The Transhumanist   02:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominate some good news and see if it is posted. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, but the article is currently lacking. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for ITN. Some expansion is needed though.BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Australian Open

 * Oppose on quality Unsourced paragraphs, links in section headers, no prose update, just tables upon tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not ready to be posted, as there is no prose summary of either final. What little prose is in the article is almost entirely unreferenced. Even the lead doesn't mention the winners. Needs major work. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article needs to be rewritten. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is exactly 1 section of 3 uncited paragraphs of text outside of the lead section. This would need a massive amount of good, well-referenced prose describing the tournament and the finals specifically to be ready for main page posting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Guillou

 * Weak oppose the massive list of compositions, none of which appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, somewhat overwhelms, but the rest of the article is satisfactory other than an unreferenced para in the middle. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to remove what others created, but it could be done if needed. The same list is on French and German, and his publisher. I'm going to write at least an article about one of them, promised. - They should not be bolded. Help, anyone? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps best to fork the list to: List of works by Jean Guillou or something? Otherwise it overpowers the article.  The literature section seems to be a mix of works by Guillou and those about him.  The latter should be in a "further reading" section.  Otherwise it's not too bad apart from the unreffed paragraph - Dumelow (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The paragraph (shortened is now reffed. I don't think the works "overpower" being at the end. Will divide as you said, right now, but then will be out again, so have no time for a works list. Compare Reger works if you want to make a good one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved the list of compositions to a fork. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

All fine now. Fork was a good idea. --Tone 16:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work all - Dumelow (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Lou Robinson

 * Weak support brief but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support short but good enough for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilma Lipp

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Grimes2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support short but good enough for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ndaye Mulamba

 * Support - Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Legrand

 * Oppose per the nomination, far too much of it is unreferenced, quite shocking for such an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the article lacks citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done a major cleanup of the article, everything is sourced, but I agree with TRM that it's still in a pretty sad state considering the individual. I've moved all the discography to its own article, including awards. Isa (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well done for the cleanup. Is it ok to have awards combined with discography? The article currently doesn't say much about his awards. Is the intention to move them back once fully sourced? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no particular intentions with this article, but we can discuss this on the talk page. Isa (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've started a discussion thread at Talk:Michel Legrand. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support after major clean up and WP:CFORK by User:Isanae, the sourcing issue appears to be resolved. I have also added Isanae as an updater in the nomination, since they deserve the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short in comparison to the subject's standing, but well referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Albert J. Dunlap

 * Comment The IPC section has a lot of primary sourcing and it could just be removed altogether. A large chunk of the Sunbeam section is sourced to sec.gov. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

U.S. federal government shutdown ends

 * weak oppose. I'm seeing far less in the UK media about the shutdown ending than I was stories about the effects of the shutdown. I agree though that discussing it is sensible even if there isn't a consensus to post. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb because this spending bill expires after 21 days. In just a few weeks, the longest shutdown will be back on & they'll be back to bickering about a border wall. I may be willing to support a blurb once it truly ends, but this temporary reopening is short-term by definition and therefore won't have long-term consequences. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , see WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a prediction that they only funded the government for 3 weeks. That's just what they did. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to act as if they've already found a long-term solution and passed a full annual spending bill, which they haven't done. If they do that, they prevent a shutdown, but that hasn't happened. I'm acting based off of the news that exists at the moment; with all due respect, declaring this the end of the shutdown is what's actually a crystal ball here. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's a prediction that we're going to have another shutdown. It is not a prediction that the December 2018-January 2019 shutdown ended. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's over when they actually fund the government, but that has not happened yet. I see the heart of our disagreement is that - though this funding is temporary - you would not regard absence of funding as a continuation of the 2018 to 2019 shutdown, but rather a separate event (though caused by the same circumstances). My stance is that it's newsworthy when they actually fund the government for the fiscal year, not just for 3 weeks. Because this temporary funding is exactly that - temporary by definition - I would not regard failure to pass a bill for the same fiscal year over the same issues as a new event under a new name just because they added a 3-week grace period. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support one would be hard pressed to find a country where this isn't in the news. The fact that it'll expire in 21 days is even better, since it means we can anticipate the next blurb-worthy event. Banedon (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose it's had its time, and it's in the past, and it's no longer of any interest; it's only a matter of moments before we get the next grotesque gesture from Trump to debate. This is old news. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose If it hadn't been in ongoing for two weeks it would make a nice break for the solid wall of disaster stubs currently in the box. Predicting another shutdown in three weeks is WP:CRYSTAL and rather unlikely -- Trump was soundly defeated by Pelosi and isn't interested in that again. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Should have been done on Jan. 25. Getting stale fast. Sca (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We posted the end of the far shorter shutdown in 2013. The end of the shutdown is obviously newsworthy and deserves a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb for the end of the shutdown, though the blurb could do with simplifying. This was the longest, most disruptive and most expensive US government shutdown. If things collapse in three weeks we can reconsider then, rather than engaging in WP:CRYSTAL. The article appears in good shape, given its politically-controversial nature. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait We're on a 3 week timer here for Congress to pass complete funding for the year before the recently passed allocation is exhausted, and then we'll be in shutdown again. We should only post once the gov't is fully funded for the year. (hence why I was against pulling it, as the negotiations to get completing funding will still be an updated story until it happens). --M asem (t) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , if the government shuts down again on Feb 15, someone will nominate it. I will if nobody does it before I do. This will be long off the main page if posted by Feb 15. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My concern is that news of the interim workaround and the attempts to full fund the gov't will remain high in the news cycle, as such the shutdown remains an ongoing, and will be there until the fully funded gov't appropriations are passed, even if that goes beyond 3 weeks. The "new" shutdown is still the same shutdown since this last bill was a delaying approach, the same issues of trying to fund the wall remain in place. Effectively, the story hasn't changed, and the end point has not been reached. --M asem  (t) 20:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem that it would not be a "new" shutdown simply because they temporarily paused it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems largely a matter of semantics. Sca (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we have blurbed the end of the longest "temporary pause in US government shutdowns" when this one started, since the shutdown was really just "paused" since 2013? That's not how this works, come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there is a notable difference between actually passing the spending bill for the year & passing a grace-period to allow time to continue talking about the spending bill. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support All blurbs are for things that are "over." Why would we are pull an item off ITN just as the most substantial events are occurring? ghost 12:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're advocating an "Ongoing" listing rather than a blurb, to be honest. But in any case, this is hardly "in the news" any longer, I can't even find it on the US page of the BBC News page, let alone the main news homepage... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose just as Trump would have wanted, this was quickly forgotten about. But yeah, the shutdown was a newsworthy period, whereas the announcement of its end was met with sneers before everyone moving on to watching what the government is actually doing. It's not such an impact that it's still significant days later. Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bangsamoro Autonomous Region creation plebiscite

 * Support but I'd rather it's phrased different. "...is created after voters voted for its creation" sounds a little awkward. Nice4What (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the bombing article is too short to be added as of now. I'd phrase the blurb as "In the Philippines, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region is established after a plebiscite as a result of the Bangsamoro peace process". Nice4What (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (but as Nice4What recommended, modify the blurb's language. "voters voted" is redundant.) A referendum resulting in the establishment of an autonomous community certainly isn't unimportant or inconsequential. The links in the nom comment show that this story has been developing for seven years, and now it's effective. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 06:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded as per suggestion. There's a second part of the plebiscite next week in other places, but even if the measure if defeated everywhere by that time, the new autonomous region would still be created as per this week's result. Update -- apparently there's a bombing in Jolo that caused the deaths of almost 20. As ITN loves disasters, that would surely be included in the blurb somehow... Howard the Duck (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but I think it should also mention the bombing that killed 27 people. The bombing also has a page.
 * I have added an altblurb that included the bombings, but 2019 Jolo Cathedral bombings is barely a stub and I didn't boldface it. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the entire results section has no prose and a lot of empty tables. The creation article doesn't mention the bombing at all, and the bombing article is a stub which is too short even by the usual disaster stub standards of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Empty tables are for next week's second part of the plebiscite; whatever the results there (such as none, all, just one, or 99% of the localities vote to be included in the new autonomous region), the new autonomous region would still exist due to last week's plebiscite. Bombing article is not boldfaced -- we'd only be discussing about links that are boldfaced here, isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added some prose updates in the prose section, and added the bombings in the plebiscite article. The only blank table that can be filled up is Basilan's municipalities consenting of Isabela joining the new autonomous region. There's a total tally already, but no per-municipality totals. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article needs a copyedit too for curiosities like "Additionally adjacent local government units bordering the localities above can opt for a voluntary inclusion in the plebiscite" --LaserLegs (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Core territories" listed is not referenced. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: both proposed blurbs are far too verbose and uninformative, and the first is ungrammatical. A concise and meaningful blurb should be a prerequisite for posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Concerend that we're connected two events that appear to not have yet been connected by authorities, only proximity in time and place. There's nothing that seems to suggest the voting result lead to the bombing. --M asem (t) 18:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The bombings have now been nominated separately, so I have updated this proposal to just consider the plebiscite &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until February 6th when the second vote has taken place and the extent of the BOL area is known. As a bonus, that provides some time for a much needed copyedit and the empty tables won't be empty. Referencing is ok, except the "Bangsamoro 'core' territory" section which needs a ref (the results table refs will suffice. Nolo contendere on "significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Brumadinho dam disaster

 * Support - I was about to nominate it. This is a major tragedy in Brazil involving one of the largest mining companies in the world. The article is still a stub, as the event occurred only a few hours ago, but it's being improved. Seven dead until now, but (unfortunately) the death toll is expected to rise to dozens or even hundreds of people in the upcoming hours.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Probably many many more dead. The article's a stub, but that's expected since the disaster just happened. It will probably be significantly expanded in the coming day or two. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements. The disaster is notable. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:844B:A23C:55CE:697F (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Its the first incident of deadly dam burst this year and will grow in the following weeks as search for survivors goes on. Furthermore, everyone is covering it. Shadychiri (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time, stub and just three sentences actually describing the event itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality alone. Although referencing is good, the article desparately needs some structure (e.g. lede, background, collapse, rescue, investigation, reactions) and expansion. The event is definitely noteworthy enough to feature on ITN, but not in its current condition. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, terribly written, including awful Reactions section that says nothing. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is little more than a stub. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Issues raised by editors who have opposed the proposal have been solved. As noted on the talk page, a map could be included to the entry! --Joalpe (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's still marked as as stub and still only covers the incident itself with four sentences... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sturm (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  for now. It's getting better, but not quite enough for the main page. I have reclassified it as a "start," though only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's not great, but it is no longer a stub and there is enough content, adequately sourced, to post. I would expect expansion as more details become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Asking for a non-stub article on a breaking disaster in a remote area of a developing county is inane. It's going to take days for full details to come out, we know enough to report on it. --M asem (t) 17:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who asked for "full details"? And thanks for the personal attack.  Certainly for me, all I was asking for was "more than three sentences" dealing with the event.  We're not a news ticker Masem, ever you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of media reporting on this BBC within the hour of this, there are very little details known - I would fully expect a longer article if this happened in the US or Europe, but not in the middle of Brazil. This is exactly the type of disaster that ITN would cover as long as the article is up to quality, it's not an issue of being a news ticker. But we have to recognize that sometimes we aren't going to be able to cover an event in the same type of detail as other events due to issues like geography, etc. but we can source it sufficiently (which is not a question for this article). The ask to have a longer article (which in essence, requires one to have more details) in this situation just doesn't make sense. --M asem (t) 22:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important to rush this article to the main page, when by your own admission, "very little is known"? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For disasters happening in one of our major cities, developments would be very fast (such as the 2018 fire at the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro). For something like this, it'll be weeks before news start to come by. Brumadinho is deep inside one of our inner states (a rich one nevertheless), a completely rural and very poor region, so news will be very hard to come by in the next few days. I do not really know what exactly are expecting to happen. A US-like reaction? José Luiz talk 01:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As per Masem. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. I keep reading that "we're not a ticker" -- there is no reason to rush yet another disaster stub to the main page. It's "in the news" when the article is up to scratch, post it. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for article to be expanded with additional information. There are plenty of Eng.-lang. sources  . For such a big disaster, we shouldn't be promoting a bare-bones article on the Main Page.– Sca (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article does have enough detail, but more would be appreciated. A See also for similar incidents, too? Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per Masem.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At 350 words it's getting there, but at 23:00 some 300 people were still missing. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article has improved since the early voters commented here. It's still not great but it is I think good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments I think the consensus is there so I'm marking it as ready. I'll leave it to another admin to post. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think some of the beginning opposes should be ignored as the page got better, and more information broke on the story. 40 deaths is serious, especially with 350 others missing. Alex of Canada (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Still looks quite thin. Sca (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * update at least sixty killed now Bageense (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Florence Knoll

 * Oppose till the sourcing issues are fixed. Bibliography is unsourced, several claims in article needs source as well. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above, doesn't look beyond recovery. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bibliography section lacks citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suspect advertorial intent on this page. It appears to surreptitiously promote the eponymous furniture retailer. This is article is not properly biographical enough. Needs to be refocused on Florence Knoll herself.--- Coffee  and crumbs  17:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bruce Corbitt

 * Oppose sourcing needs major work. Both images are up for deletion discussion on commons for possible WP:Copyvio. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose much of the latter portions of the article are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A large portion of the article lacks citations. Also, the two images may be copyright violations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove shutdown from ongoing
Not sure to use a template. 2018-19 United States federal government shutdown temporarily stopped for at least the next three weeks - see BBC. Juxlos (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - As good as over right now.--WaltCip (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources: AP, BBC, Guardian, NYT – Sca (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until it's done, shouldn't be more than a few hours. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Has Trump signed the bill into law yet? Are we all that sure he won't change his mind at the last minute? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Even if passed, that's only 3 weeks, and there will be just as much pressure to get funding back in place. --M asem (t) 21:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Might be worth mentioning that he's given in and reopened government without any money for border wall. Kingsif (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Once it's confirmed to be done, support removing from ongoing, but it's only temporary and 30 days later they'll be back at square one with the government being shut down over a wall. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, but only until after we have confirmed the article isn't being updated. Even once the legislation is passed, the story is likely to remain in the media, and the article is still likely to keep getting timely, substantive updates.  When and if the article is not being so updated, we can remove it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait I'd give it at least 24hrs. There is likely to be continuing fallout and news regarding this for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until Trump actually signs the budget deal bill that the Congress just passed (as he can still change his mind). Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump signed it. Shutdown is over. For three weeks anyway. I propose we remove from ongoing and post a blurb. Something like The 2018-19 United States federal government shutdown ends after a record 35 days. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except, we're going to be back here in three weeks (or earlier if they sign off on the full appropriations). The situation is not over. --M asem (t) 03:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , and if the government shuts down again on Feb 15, someone will nominate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and post as blurb so what if the situation isn't over. Three weeks is plenty of time for the oldest blurb to roll off the bottom, and we can post another blurb later if needed. Banedon (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal and definitely not a blurb, it's over for now, we don't need to give it even more main page news. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support its actually over now. Given how many people said to wait until its over, and given that it has been updated (see 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown) I have marked this as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing removal and posting as blurb. No. 1 story globally Jan. 25; follow-up coverage continues. Sca (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. If there is interest in posting as a blurb, this should be renominated as such. Best,  Spencer T• C 14:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia

 * This is going to be posted when it happens, but as per te BBC "The deal only becomes final once the Nato accession protocol is ratified in Athens". --M asem (t) 14:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous time it has been agreed that the Greek ratification is the point when we post it. NATO membership is an ITN story on its own. --Tone 14:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just making sure this is the right end point. Sources are a mess if the renaming and NATO membership are two different processes, or one larger process, etc. The renaming is absolutely an ITN item, just want to get the right timing. --M asem (t) 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ratification of the NATO membership is in a way tied to solving the dispute. The vote on this is in February. If there is some development that the vote fails, this again is a story on its own. --Tone 16:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wake me up when the UN recognizes it as the new name Openlydialectic (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At which point the other half will call it stale. Support ghost 18:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Openlydialectic.--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be just a procedural step. This is the key moment - both parties in the 28-year old dispute have agreed on the name (why does the proposed blurb say 26?). --Tone 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, this looks irreversible by now and the name change in UN will likely be a formality. Brandmeistertalk  16:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – Must voice skepticism about the significance of this name change. How does it affect, or reflect, anything on the ground? It's not the result of a revolution, coup or military defeat. It's just on paper. Sca (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It ends years of political conflict with Greece that objected to it being a sovereign country under the name "Macedonia" (due to the area having historically been named Macedonia in Greece's history). This created naming conflicts between international bodies (UN, NATO, EU, etc.) IT will now be known as the Republic of North Macedonia, which then should allow its clearance into NATO to be accepted by Greece.  Effectively it is country changing its name, which should easily be an ITN, regardless of how it came about. --M asem  (t) 18:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may 'only' be a name, but the dispute has had real and serious consequences for international relations. Blocking membership of the EU, NATO etc. is not trivial. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly significant. This seems to be the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly has become one of the two most overused words in the English language (the other being iconic). – Sca (talk)


 * Support - A done deal, the name change will happen. Siginificant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support we've waited way too long on this nomination; also what GCG said. Banedon (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until name change actually occurs, but otherwise I fully support this story being included. Nice4What (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Republic of North Macedonia no longer redirects to the old name (and the current page is moved to the new name) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait (again) Every step of the way for the last year, many editors have tried changing the Republic of Macedonia page to Republic of North Macedonia and post an ITN story. We're getting very close to finally being able to post it, and soon we will, (which I will enthusiastically support) but it's still not official and still won't be used by the republic until it receives NATO ratification, which is expected to take a few weeks . source Additionally, when it finally does happen, I recommend also bolding "Republic of North Macedonia" once the official adoption actually happens and the article has been moved. Come back in a few weeks when it's finally the official name of the republic. The blurb can still mention the Prespa agreement and state that it brought an end to the naming dispute, but it wouldn't make sense not to post the name change once the name finally actually changes. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be more on red tape side. In that case what blurb we will use upon NATO ratification? The renaming should be tied to a relevant process which NATO accession is not. Brandmeistertalk  20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "What blurb will we use?" We'll use a blurb that mentions that they've adopted the name Republic of North Macedonia. Is it really just red tape - when the point of the story is that Macedonia is changing its name - to post it when Macedonia actually changes their name? As of right now, just like as of a few weeks ago, and just like a few months ago, they're not the Republic of North Macedonia. We can post it with no hesitation when they are, but they're not. Nothing has actually changed yet. I mean no ill will in saying this, I just think that the most appropriate time to post the name change is when the name change happens. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the NATO ratification (specifically, accession of Macedonia to NATO) is not the same as the renaming process. Bolding merely the "Republic of North Macedonia" at that stage wouldn't look informative to me when we can link to specific relevant event. Perhaps linking to Republic_of_Macedonia should work. Brandmeistertalk  23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support bolding both the dispute and the country simultaneously, but I do like your proposal to link directly to #Name to do both in one link. The reason why the NATO ratification and the renaming process are inseparable is because it is upon the ratification that Macedonia will begin using the name "North Macedonia", per sources linked above. It's more about Macedonia actually becoming North Macedonia at long last and less about their accession into NATO, but they've decided to tie the rename to the ratification. They signed Prespa seven months ago, but they're still Macedonia. Their parliament ratified the change, but they're still Macedonia. Greece approved of it, but they're still Macedonia. When they get the NATO ratification, they'll finally be North Macedonia. That's when this story will finally be settled and the naming dispute will be history. That's what we're waiting for. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose what nations decide to call one another is trivia, what the world agrees to call a nation is newsworthy. I'll support when that's done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support posting now, not waiting for NATO. Both sides to the long-running dispute have now formally approved the solution. All obstacles have been removed and the renaming has happened. Waiting for the change to percolate through to other bodies seems unnecessary and would simply make the blurb less timely. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that it is too soon to post a blurb about the name change as we still need to wait for the name to actually change. But importants steps towards this goal are being taken now, the change is probably only a few weeks away, the topic is very much in the news and I'm sure many people are coming here to find out what the status of this process is. Some may have heard about the Greek parliament's vote and assume that the name change has already happened, and so wonder why it's not mentioned on our Main Page. For these reasons I suggest we should:
 * Post Macedonia naming dispute to Ongoing now.
 * Once the name is actually changed, then pull Macedonia naming dispute from Ongoing and post a full blurb with the link to Republic of North Macedonia in bold. — Kpalion(talk) 09:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question When there is an election, for example a Presidential election, do we announce the President-elect or do we wait for them to be inaugurated or do we do both? Or does it depend on the high-profiledness of the country? Could similar logic/precedent apply here? -TenorTwelve (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Krishna Sobti
--Tone 16:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support appears adequate to post. --LukeSurlt c 15:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support g2g. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Altino Pinto de Magalhães

 * Weak support a dab there and a dubious year (199??), otherwise fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support issues resolved. Ready to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh McIlvanney

 * Support comment article is currently tagged for citations. the personal life section is unsourced. please fix this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added sources, the article is longer now too. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work Drchriswilliams. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Drchriswilliams Agree that issue is resolved now, I have changed my comment to support accordingly.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A true giant in UK sports journalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what the delay is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC) ... now nearly 12 hours since it was fixed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim McKean

 * Support Start class article whose sourcing looks good. DannyS712, please add sources for 2nd para on Jim McKean. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just removed the paragraph - I looked for 25 minutes, but couldn't find any sources for those specific claims. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, I have changed to support now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Viktor Yanukovych's conviction
Oppose Don't you think the blurb should mention that the conviction was IN ABSENTIA? Also, since it' a conviction in absentia, I think it's pretty unimportant. There was no way he was gonna be acquitted anyway, and since he's hiding in Russia it's all but guaranteed he will never actually face prison or any other sentence that the court is trying to impose. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it was in absentia, but on the other hand we report facts, not whether he will serve the sentence or not. For that matter, we don't post serving of the sentences, but actual convictions. Brandmeistertalk  10:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but write "in absentia". That helps keep in mind that the trial is politically charged. Banedon (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. Brandmeistertalk  11:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm struggling to see how we can sumarise this succintly in a one sentence blurb and remain compliant with NPOV. It is too easy to see this from a western perspective:  Yes the blurb is factually correct, but equally so is "He was democratically elected and removed from power unconstitutionally", which makes the blurb looks very biased indeed.  If the blurb isn't neutral to both viewpoints it shouldn't go up. 3142 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what exactly was that he was convicted for, but I have 0 doubt that he was deeply corrupt. On the other hand, I hope we all here (unlike the people from the talk page of his article) understand that the Ukrainian court system is light years away from being apolitical or unbiased, so... Yeah, it's a political verdict. I'd post the news when they discover who were the snipers that shot at both the police and the protesters during the Maidan, but I guess we'll have to wait until the CIA archives get declassified. And I am afraid we'll have to wait at least a century or more.  Openlydialectic (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At least a century or more? You seem to have surprisingly little faith in the abilities of the Russian hacking community Tlhslobus (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we still don't know what happened to USS Maine in 1898 or who shot at the US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, except for the academic consensus that neither the Spanish nor the Vietnamese had anything to do with these two incidents Openlydialectic (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True, though the CIA didn't exist in 1898 and didn't have hackable email in 1964. But unfortunately this is at least arguably all getting a wee bit off-topic, so I'd probably better say no more on the subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per NPOV concerns, as well as the actual news-worthiness of a verdict that was never in doubt and will never be actioned. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 54129. New old news, so to speak. Changes nothing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it will make a difference but I have suggested an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as above. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, story has been covered appropriately by appropriate news sources, and the update is sufficiently detailed. I can't find any reason to keep this off of the main page.  Checks off all boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the box that reads "significance of the developments" ? That seems to be the main point of the oppose voters. ghost 18:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Jayron32. This event is very much in the news. Davey2116 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 54129 et al. Just because this is in the news doesn't make it newsworthy enough for ITN, otherwise we'd have to post dozens or hundreds of similarly inconsequential items every day. I doubt if even Yanukovich is all that interested in this story, so I suspect few of our readers will be all that interested either. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This might be worth considering for posting in case he gets jailed and this verdict changes something in the country but the institutional freedom and capacity don't seem to show any sign of improvement. The main reason why this verdict comes at this time is to boost some candidacies before the presidential election in two months, while most people in the country are outrageously despising any move made by the government. In reality, there is no doubt that he will be rehabilitated once the next pro-Russian government takes control of the institutions in the same way as it happened with Yulia Tymoshenko shortly after the fall of the previous government. To sum up, although this might look like a major news with decent amount of attention in the western media, it's just part of a domestic political campaign in the wake of an upcoming election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose His conviction changes nothing. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mixed I was about to !vote oppose, but I'm confident that if a former & living US president or UK prime minister was found guilty of high treason - even if there's no chance in hell that they'll be punished for it - would be found notable because it would obviously make its way into history textbooks. It's almost inevitable that Ukrainians a few generations from now will learn about that time when their own president was found to be guilty of the highest crimes against his own country and got away with it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just that Ukraine isn't the US. I don't know what their pupils study at school nowadays, but I can verify that from my anecdotal knowledge of having talked to a number of Ukrainians, it seems they en masse believe that literally every single one of their presidents is guilty of the highest crimes against their own country. And not just the presidents too, but every major politician too. But that's ofcourse just my anecdotal knowledge of the problem. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose already stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Abdullah of Pahang

 * Support on significance but there are three sections of the article (ie almost all the prose) that are completely unreferenced. GoldenRing (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, correct? ghost 15:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article quality is completely unacceptable. This is ITNR since we did not post the abdication, this should be post as soon as the article is overhauled. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a mess. Hardly any of it has references, it's poorly organized, lots of non-standard formatting throughout, someone will need to do some major work to get it up to the quality needed for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. This does qualify under ITNR as a new head of state, see the previous nomination a few weeks ago. The article is rubbish though, poorly written and mostly unreferenced. It's going to need a lot of work before it could be posted. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georges Nasser

 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Oliver "Tuku" Mtukudzi

 * Oppose Very poorly sourced. --SirEdimon (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discography onwards inadequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has severe issues with its citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nils Hasselmo

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is an entire paragraph that lacks citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * more refs added --DannyS712 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Erik Olin Wright

 * Oppose weak article and referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - Please ping me when you have improved it. It needs more in-lined RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has been tagged. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Juan Guaidó sworn in as President of Venezuela

 * Oppose blurb but support ongoing. Something is happening today on this ongoing story, but I don't think it's blurbable.  It will continue to happen until Maduro is killed, arrested, leaves the country, or regains power. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - this is a major political story. BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing though I intensely dislike the term "presidential crisis." I would suggest that "constitutional crisis" is much more accurate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should defer to the article's name. Suggest you start by proposing to move the article &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb is not quite accurate. Guadio was sworn in as the interim President based on a constitutional claim both he and the National Assembly back, but it remains that Maduro remains in power. I do think this is a point to post a blurb since now officially there is a conflict in power, and until that's resolved, this should fall out as an ongoing story. --M asem (t) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb Support either alternative blurb (I or II) because there is no article ready: the primary article should be either 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis sublinked to a relevant paragraph, or a new article specifically for today's events, but I'm not sure the test of time will prove them notable enough for their own article quite yet. Otherwise, support. LjL (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No reason why President of Venezuela or Juan Guaidó shouldn't be the primary article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note The Washington Post is reporting that Maduro has just broken diplomatic relations with the US and has ordered American diplomats to leave within 72 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, there's too many events that an ongoing is the best solution, with a blurb maybe once resolved. --M asem (t) 20:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Put 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état 23 January 2019 Venezuela presidency claim in Ongoing and Wait until Friday? Kingsif (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – 'Til the dust settles. (Five sources added.) – Sca (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI: there is now a dedicated article 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état, although I skillfully predict the article's title and content will be disputed. LjL (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Guaidó was sworn in today as President of Venezuela by the National Assembly and his presidency has already been recognized by the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, and Paraguay. This is a full-blown constitutional crisis. ♠ TomasBat  22:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support International story, I'd prefer ongoing since major updates are expected, but I have no problem with the suggested blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support waiting is rather silly, given that many countries (other than Venezuela) have already acted. Banedon (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet this blurb gives the impression a coup has occurred and Guaidó is de facto the new president of Venezuela, but as far as we know, Maduro still maintains complete or substantial control. There is currently a dispute about the new 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état article because it's unclear whether it can (yet) be called a coup d'état at all, so I really wouldn't agree with submitting the current blurb to ITN without making it clearer the presidency is, at best, now disputed. LjL (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Tentative support but it needs an amended blurb. We can't just say he's been sworn in as president as if that's uncontroversial and indisputable. Maduro still claims to be in charge, and quite possibly he actually is. Also calling it a coup seems at this stage WP:FRINGE so we should avoid linking to that article unless it's moved or merged.
 * Comment alt blurb is up, but cumbersome, suggestions welcome. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb II "The National Assembly swears-in Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela in opposition to Nicolás Maduro amongst a presidential crisis."


 * The article should also be 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, too early to call it a coup. Nice4What (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding that the "presidency claim" article is not a sufficient name, adding my proposal as alt blurb 2.
 * Not the best name, but a descriptive one, meaning it's sufficient whether we think it's good or not. Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing. Between this action by the national assembly, Maduro's actions to kick out countries that support the opposition, and open protests that are edging on violent (tear gas being used), this should be ongoing until the situation is resolved. --M asem (t) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 02:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there's too many stories that are all very much ITN worthy related to the situation (this appointment, Maduro's kicking out the US and others, the deaths in the protests against Maduro) that we can't cover all of them, so the ongoing is the best solution here. --M asem (t) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support International story, I'd prefer ongoing since major updates are expected. AbDaryaee (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Indonesian floods

 * Support Obviously significant, article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Russell Baker

 * Support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Mariano Rivera

 * Oppose a good trivia answer, but not important news. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree singling out Mariano for a blurb is not NPOV. However, there is an argument to made for blurbing all inductees of some major halls of fame and honour as ITNR. Not only in sports but other categories such as music like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. For now, I see no reason why we can not blurb all four inductees: Mariano Rivera, Edgar Martínez, Roy Halladay, and Mike Mussina. I would argue that induction in the the Baseball Hall of Fame is the top honor in baseball.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an NPOV problem. The fact is that no player has been elected unanimously, not even Babe Ruth, and finally it happened. There's a hall of fame class every year, but the unanimous aspect makes this a little more newsworthy than any other year. But, even though I'm a yuuuuuge Yankees fan, and as excited as I was to see him be elected unanimously, I don't think we should post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is of little real importance. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's not insignificant by any means. But if we post this I think we are lowering the bar somewhat and will be setting a precedent that I'm not comfortable with. On which note I congratulate him on his remarkable feat, even though he was a Yankee [boo hiss] . -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this would be better suited for a different part of the main page, it's certainly of very limited encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons given above: this is of little real importance, to publish this "story" would lower the bar and set a bad precedent (Digging a little deeper, I see that there are Halls of Fame in the sport of baseball in eight other countries. And that's just one sport.) This "story" is also better suited for a different part of the main page. I also note that the proposed blurb links to "Baseball Hall of Fame" which is a redirect. Chrisclear (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just a technicality in the process of selecting an award. Whether his vote was unanimous or not doesn't make any difference to the appointment. Several baseball players are inducted into the hall of fame every year, and we almost never post sporting awards (as opposed to actual sporting contests). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Fairlie (chef)

 * Weak support certainly enough there now, those refs need some spring cleaning though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ahmed Imtiaz Bulbul

 * This article is extremely short, I would like to see it expanded first. --Tone 09:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose poorly referenced proto-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article still seems a little sparse. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Leo Paquette

 * Has sourcing issues which need resolving first &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marcel Azzola

 * Oppose' while discography remains mainly unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it's all in the source on the last entry, so this is a support now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * support - ready to go. BabbaQ (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harris Wofford

 * Oppose a few too many citations still needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article still has a few tags. &#8213; Susmuffin  Talk 12:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The cn tags have been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Emiliano Sala & 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu disappearance
Comment If you oppose a blurb, but support a RD listing for Sala, please state "RD Only". Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I need some more information; is this the equivalent of Tom Brady or Derek Jeter being on board a plane that went missing? 331dot (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near that high profile. Sala was a moderately successful player at a mid-table French club, who signed for Cardiff City (near the bottom of the Premier League) a few days ago but never played a game for them. Even most football fans had never heard of him until he disappeared. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - insofar as he is a professional sportsman playing in the top tier of his sport, and a wikinotable person not notable only for the event in question, yes. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My question is more specific, are they in the top tier of the top tier? While every death merits an RD listing, I'm not sure every death of someone in any top tier professional league merits a blurb simply because they are in a top tier professional league.  Are they a star player? 331dot (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, very much not, he just signed for Cardiff City, that should explain it all really. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad that I don't follow football or support a team, because I can look at this with totally unbiased eyes. AIUI, FC Nantes, the team which Sala was signed from by Cardiff City, are in the top league in French football. Cardiff City are in the top league in English football. That is all we need to consider here, not whether one team is better than another, nor that one player is better than another. That he is of a standard to play in the top tier is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I answered 331dot's question. He's not top tier of the top tier by any means.  That he is notable just enables an article about the aircraft's disappearance to be maintained.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't follow football/soccer either, but I wouldn't support an NFL or MLB benchwarmer getting a blurb. Not everyone in the top tier leagues even gets time on the field, let alone gets the star power for significant coverage of their status. I agree that the event merits an article, but not a blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He wouldn't merit an RD listing unless the plane/he is found, or he is legally declared dead. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)I guess we should wait until he's been declared dead really. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The chief officer of the Channel Islands Air Search, said the probability of finding anyone alive from the missing aircraft was "reducing very rapidly"." Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * RD Only - if it's confirmed that he's dead - Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha was evidently more notable in business and sports administration than Sala is in playing sport and was RD only. 89.243.227.163 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's implicit that he has to be dead to get a RD listing, but thank you for your opinion. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that we have no confirmation that he is dead, even if it is likely. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if he died, he merits an RD. If not, this is not a story that needs a blurb. Sad story, but was not remotely at the apex of his field, and Vichai, as above, was more notable. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A blurb focused specifically on his disappearance would only be allowable if the subject himself were sufficiently noteworthy (i.e. top of the top of the field), and RD would only be allowable if his death could be confirmed. This fails on both counts.--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip. Banedon (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait His dead was not confirmed yet.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait His death has not been confirmed. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a minor air crash with a barely-notable footballer on board (he never even played a game for Cardiff). Tragic for those involved, but not significant enough to merit posting on ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Henri, Count of Paris

 * Oppose The article quality is a non-starter at the moment. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, lots of work needed with references. Also, if the article is fixed in time, it should probably be piped as Henri d'Orléans. --Tone 20:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too much unreferenced material for a BLP. Should probably be razed to a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "A bit of work" is an understatement. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Substantial edits and improvements in RS has now been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactStraight (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Needs a little more before I will reverse !vote. But almost there. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support pending further improvements per Coffeeandcrumbs Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Maidan Shar attack

 * Strong support on importance but oppose on quality: Article is stub-like and doesn’t have any subsections. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – For details. Initial article is a stub. (Four sources added.) Sca (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Strong support on notability, but the article is four sentences long at this time. I'll gladly strike out this !vote and replace it with a support once there's more information. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is a stub and there is little coverage. Compare this BBC report with this one. The article can be expanded after there's hopefully more coverage and we can post the death toll when it becomes somewhat less disputed, and hopefully as small as possible. w umbolo   ^^^  22:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources say 20, others "dozens." Developing. Sca (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Earliest reports said 20 but now everyone estimates it over 126. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the article further. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support — Bukhari    (Talk!)   11:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – On significance. Did some cleanup. Sca (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a short article, but it seems sourced. There's a new story, and enough coverage . w umbolo   ^^^  18:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shivakumara Swami

 * Oppose several claims unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, thanks for your feedback. I have done major work in improving the references since you voted. Please reconsider the !vote. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks almost fine, just "He studied English in college and is proficient in Kannada and Sanskrit." needs a reference and to be changed to past tense. --Tone 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, Tone thanks for the feedback. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

--Tone 14:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Al-Queda attack on Chadian UN peacekeepers in Mali

 * Weak support important news but the target is a bit... listy. What's there is okay though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Agree with TRM. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Article is thin, and it's larded with flag salad, which could be handled in a footnote. Sca (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above. The story is of course notable, and the article isn't in a bad shape (but only 1 lone paragraph about the nominated story at the end of the article is not a lot). Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support only if these noms are merged There is a clear cause and effect between the restoration of Chad–Israel relations and this attack. We should merge these two blurbs.
 * "Ten Chadian peacekeepers for the United Nations are killed in an attack by al-Qaeda in Mali in retaliation for the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Chad and Israel."--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * blurb proposed by Coffeeandcrumbs &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * HOLD ON HOLD ON there's not support for a merged blurb, and I don't see any references that show these are related. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * pinging MSGJ re support for blurb. As for references, in this article it says Responsibility was claimed by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb who stated that it was a retaliatory attack for the recent visit to Chad by Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu and the subsequent normalisation of diplomatic relations. with refs one and two --DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, the blurb is still confusing and possibly SYNTH (by taking the statement at face value), I'll try to suggest a better one. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Oppose I don't see any way to describe this without a full paragraph, probably because it's importance is largely based on the perpetrators saying it is important. If you consider this as an ongoing military conflict, it's not more disruptive than anything in the Syrian Civil War or the US airstrike in Somalia (and who knows about the Timeline of the war in Donbass (December 2018)). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What if we used claimed:
 * Ten Chadian United Nations peacekeepers are killed in what the al-Qaeda in Mali claims is retaliation for the normalisation of Chad–Israel relations. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, there is a better discussion at errors. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Chad–Israel relations restored after 46 years

 * Weak support - clearly notable, but article is little more than a stub. I'll start working on it --DannyS712 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm failing to see the significance of this I'm afraid, and while it's sort of in the news, it's still not clear why it even should be making headlines? Educate me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not like Iran or Syria restoring relations with Israel, now that would be a story 89.243.227.163 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Only just seen above story about the attack. Change to support as combined 89.243.227.163 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This story doesn't add much to the awkwardly named United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali story, which does mention this diplomatic move. Sca (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even In the two countries, this is nonevent to majority of the populace. Also, clearly not in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Has been as part of the blurb about the attack in Mali (posted by ) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Andrew G. Vajna

 * Oppose too much wrong with it right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole uncited paragraphs. Will take a lot of work. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has been tagged. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Masters (snooker)

 * Oppose. Much as I enjoy snooker, it is a relatively minor sport with limited international appeal. We already post the World Championship every year, per WP:ITNR. I don't see any reason why we should start posting a second-tier tournament as well. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on same reason I oppose the college football playoffs: it is a minor sport in the overall scope of who plays it in the world, we already cover the sport's top result in ITNR, and thus, unless something of unusual happened, we should not post other results. Users are free to try to include this in ITNR for the future. --M asem (t) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, yes, this is why we don't (usually) post lesser-tier events in other sports. Whilst the Masters is a top-tier tournament, it's not a ranking one, and only includes 16 players; there isn't really another tournament close to the World Championship. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. We did post when Mark Williams (snooker player) won the World Snooker Championship, and we can expect that we'll post whoever wins it this time, but this story isn't as significant. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For good reasons already given above. Suggest close. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * something something Trump power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Sy

 * Support Looks to be well referenced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine, ready to go --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liang Jingkui

 * Weak support not much beyond a stub, but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: good work creating this article from scratch so quickly Zanhe - Dumelow (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok, even though very short. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I just came here to nominate this myself, but I guess not --DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Government of Burkina Faso resigns after series of terror attacks

 * I'd suggest coming back when the article is ready, it is difficult to judge a nomination without any article at all. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll wait until maybe tomorrow. I'll leave this nomination here in case anyone wants to help me write this article (I've just now started it here), but I don't expect any !votes Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've since added a substantial amount of content to Burkina Faso government resignation, 2019, but I still feel like it could use a little more work. If any other editors think it's in decent shape, I'll put it in the nomination's template Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, now that a basic article exists, I've linked it and modified the blurb + nom comment. Some details are still shaky (I've found some conflicting numbers on how many people died in the recent attacks on the French Embassy and Army Headquarters) but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update - A new Prime Minister has been appointed (but the rest of the government is still vacant). Not sure if the blurb should be modified to account for this; tagging the nom as needing attention. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need attention until there is consensus to post this. I would support but we need some more input. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to tag the nomination as (Ready), or would that also imply that a consensus has been reached? Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 04:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is unusual enough (and has enough national ramifications) that it should be posted. Banedon (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have two links to the same article. Blurb altered accordingly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready as there has been no opposition in 2 days. I won't post it myself because I have commented above. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we have sufficient support now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like it's in alright shape. Narayanese (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Mendez

 * Weak oppose a few [citation needed]s in there in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support could we cite those other two memoirs? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: the most used source in the article seems to be his own website which I am not convinced by - Dumelow (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - per AGF. BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nathan Glazer

 * support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose books not referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Books not referenced and I see a paragraph without references as well. The rest is fine. --Tone 10:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated The Rambling Man; Tone ;Susmuffin - I've sourced the books and deleted the uncited statement. I'd be obliged if you could take another look now, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) At least 66 people die in Mexico pipeline explosion

 * Oppose on quality - the story is significant beyond doubt, but the article is presently four sentences in length - not even remotely near the quality needed for the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is in much better state now. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I support on condition of significance of the incident. The page is bound to grow with support of you and I.Shadychiri (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE & Support The deathtoll rose to "at least 66" from the previous 21 per BBC. The article's quality will sufface for now, as we should probably expect a swarm of Wikipedians to come work on the article once they hear the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article can still be expanded, but it's adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Support. Article had grown... is now substantial, with many sources.  I think it's time to add it. OrbitHawk (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is ready. Also, this is of huge significance given the recent government crackdown on oil thieves. Major development in Mexico right now. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 18:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN ready. Sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Significant, and sad. Sca (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but narrow down the geographical reference in the blurb (Mexico is a big place). Tlahuelilpan is probably too obscure to be useful, but "...in the Mexican state of Hidalgo" might be helpful. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how widely known Mexican states are among Eng.-lang. readers. Maybe "east-central Mexico" or "north of Mexico City" instead? Sca (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved acceptably by User:Masem, but don't underestimate en:wiki's reach among second-language speakers. Particularly, im this specific case, in light of the dire state of and generally unpleasant atmosphere on es:wiki. :) Moscow Mule (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why we use bluelinks, and encourage users to use pop-ups. Short but gives enough to know roughly where in Mexico this was. --M asem (t) 21:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support obvious one really, and article has been very well enhanced since I looked 12 hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. ID'd the nearby city in the blurb. --M asem (t) 20:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: Not sure who to ping, but death toll is now 71. Courtesy ping to . Thanks for the assistance. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, all notes like this should be at WP:ERRORS, and practically, 71 is "over 66". We don't want to update thta so frequently unless it is a drastic shift in numbers. --M asem (t) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not update it? Wouldn't it be easy? If you don't want to, I easily could, if given the priviledges. Alex of Canada (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Boo (dog)

 * Support blurb - Sourced and ready. I don't know if we post dogs. Even though cute.BabbaQ (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination box just used above says: ".. any individual human, animal or other biological organism..." Might even get a tiny cute blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Quite a lot of sources for such a tiny dog. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Even if it seems somewhat bizarre in comparison
 * added a blurb --DannyS712 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not blurb worthy. --M asem (t) 18:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as the photo on the page is a copyright violation. Too soon for fair use to be valid. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Expect it to come back, though; if it does I'll probably just delete the image. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprise, surprise! Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd guess the image is about 95% of that article's appeal. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. However, no-one has clearly looked for a free image, they've just gone for Facebook.  I bet if you pinged the owner and explained the situation they'd go for it. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feeling a bit washed up, one imagines. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD If the subject is of enough interest that we've got an article in overall decent shape (albeit a bit short) using verifiable sources, then it's fine for RD. I'm even finding BBC, CNN, HuffPo, etc stories about the dog's death, so while it's (obviously) not something we'd post as an ITN blurb, as an RD submission this is perfectly fine. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for an "internet sensation", the article is somewhat sparse, but what's there is alright. Never a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with caveat - please do not post this if the non-free image is still in the article. Otherwise, fine for RD. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Coughlin (figure skater)

 * Weak oppose, a handful of unreferenced claims, now tagged, but generally okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that The Rambling Man. I think I have fixed them all now - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, support now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article has been marked with a few tags. &#8213; Susmuffin  Talk 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * support - Improved since Oppose !votes.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support quality of the article is sufficient enough to warrant my support. RIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadychiri (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Swedish government formation

 * Stale No, no, no, you don't get a second crack at this. The general election was not posted because of quality (four opposes, all on quality grounds). We post elections with nebulous results all the time. ghost 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Officially it's a new government. Prefer Alt2. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurb is insufficient, and needs to recognize the (for Sweden) long formation process of 4 months, and contain a link to 2018–19 Swedish government formation. ― Heb the best (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I've changed the target article in the box (instead of 2018 Swedish general election) Narayanese (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb – Historic political coalition. The blurb is ok and those interested will find further info. BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article isn't even in the proposed blurb, let alone the bold article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Add a blurb then that you feel is sufficient. We oppose on article quality not a blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, nope, that’s not how it works. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The blurb fails to include the target article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to oppose. We oppose or support on article merits. A blurb can always be added. Please add one that you feel is sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I added two altblurbs that might work better. I prefer the second one. 83.233.110.5 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the second one too. I know there are two ways of spelling his surname: Löfvén is what official records like tax office  use, whereas Löfven is what his biological parents and nowadays he himself use. Narayanese (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding alt blurb. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt2. --M asem (t) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put Lofven's lede image into the image prot queue to replace the current ITN box image, once it clears. --M asem (t) 20:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Observation - Stefan Löfven was re-elected  Prime Minister of Sweden. ArionEstar (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Technicallly, "elects incumbant..." implies re-election but I did add that. --M asem (t) 20:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Spelling mistake in the blurb. His name is spelled Stefan Löfven. BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed. --M asem (t) 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "…re-elects incumbent…" seems pleonastic. ArionEstar (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Windsor Davies

 * Support The article has a decent number of sources and seems to include all information known at this time. Skteosk (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose classic "actor" BLP, many appearances not referenced, pull please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - refs now added. - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull Ref on the roles doesn't cover 1/3 of those appearing. Why are we posting items with such glaring omissions on the strength of one support? ghost 16:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled, lacking references. --Tone 20:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , The roles are all covered (and had been until and IP added unsourced dross). Can you now repost this. If the history can be examined properly between posting and requests to pull, a quick revert will remove any problems, which is what ghost should have done, rather than just request a withdraw. Just to make sure it's 100% safe, I've taken the table out, making it doubly OK to re-post. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * a) If you want to play the history game, the version in place at the time you voted was last edited by you and had several uncited works that are now gone. b) I'm not required to do anything more than I wish here. ghost 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good now, posting. --Tone 08:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Haemochromatosis affects 20 times more people than previously thought

 * Oppose The article does not appear to have been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Even if updated, I don't think this is groundbreaking medical news, particularly since its simply trying to identify the breadth of the diagnosis. --M asem (t) 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose so many different reasons not to post. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -, I do appreciate your eagerness to nominate unique stories for ITN, but surely it hasn't escaped your attention that virtually 99% of the stories you've nominated here for ITN have been unequivocally rejected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate it. At least update the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's why I don't nominate news items here on a very regular basis, say every few days or so. However, the news items I nominate here are from a certain perspective important, they could well be nominated by some alternate set of editors. The consensus here about the stories that do and don;t get nominated can thus change due to changing attitudes of the existing editors or if new editors were to arrive here. That's why it's not a bad thing to occasionally nominate the sort of news articles like this one. Count Iblis (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To stop the sniping, unless an editor is routinely nominating completely bogus stories which are routinely speedily closed for wasting everyone's time, I don't think we should consider a nominator's "hit ratio" for ITNC. In Cout Iblis' shoes, I would see this has at least a chance, so there's no need to complain about the nom due to the nominator. --M asem (t) 22:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Obscure – no bloody chance. Sca (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no update, little significance.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a rather obscure story. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not even likely to have made ITN in medical Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Major explosion in Bogotá

 * Lol, this nomination seems a little premature if there is not even an article. Suggest writing the article first :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've re-opened the nomination, because an article was created. Support pending article expansion. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:88BC:38CE:448D:D62F (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Taking out the inevitable "reaction" fluff the article is a bare bones stub. I am not opposed on principle, but article quality as of right now is far below our standards for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has been expanded since. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem - padding out with the inevitable "international reaction" section is not a sufficient expansion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? There are other sections now. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I changed the blurbs since now it's reported that 21 people lost their lives in the incident.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Information - Alternative added. ArionEstar (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Pretty major incident, the article isn't in the best shape, but bringing it to the front page would surely bring more editors to improve it? Alex of Canada (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 21 is a lot. Bolivia is a secure country Openlydialectic (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bogota is in Colombia, not Bolivia, though. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable event and article is improving.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article has been improved significantly. --Tone 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Oliver

 * Support — the lede is overly short, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with it, and the article is in good shape. I especially appreciate the last two sections "poetic identity" and "critical reviews," which are well-referenced, provide a number of perspectives on her work, and in doing so show her impact on the English literary world. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD article looks fully referenced; even the awards all have citations. I don't see a blurb either, but I agree that some people might support one. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Wilson (Australian musician)

 * Support good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any more details on his death? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much in the reports so far. Just that he had a diagnosis of cancer (I have added this) - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support comprehensive, very well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Manbij bombing

 * Weak Support - Per sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose Too short; insufficient coverage of topic to merit posting at this time.  Spencer T• C 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jack Bogle

 * Oppose blurb - he was 89 and only a household name among a small group of people. I'm not sure that Warren Buffett would get a blurb, and Bogle is less prominent.  Not yet ready for RD either, but I expect that will be fixed in the next few hours. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Warren Buffet has described Bogle as probably the greatest investor he has ever known. If the standard for a blurb is that the newly deceased was more or less universally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession or calling, then I think he qualifies. Name recognition is not a criteria. That said, I agree that the article needs a little work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when ready. The criterion for death-blurbs is someone at the top of their field, where the field is not too narrow. Michael Atiyah was among the leading mathematicians of his time, and Bogle (from what I'm reading) was one of the most prominent investors. Atiyah should've gotten a blurb, and Bogle should get one, too. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, if Warren Buffett doesn't get a blurb, I daresay that the serial blurb-!opposers have gone far too far. He's a household name and has been in the top five richest people for as long as I can remember. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I would expect that someone that deserves a blurb would have a significant section that makes it clear why this person is clearly blurb-worthy - influence, etc. That's just not there. RD is sufficient but article needs referencing fixing. --M asem (t) 03:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Regardless of someone's influence or fame in a certain area, their death actually has to be In The News - after all, that's the whole point of this section. I'm looking at the BBC website and not only is this story not on the front page, it's not even in the North America news section.  Indeed, the only UK news source I can see that has anything on the story is the Financial Times. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequately referenced, and certainly not blurb-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing concerns seem to have been addressed. Is this RD good to go? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what article you're looking at, but no, it's not good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of references &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Blurbs should be reserved for cases in which the death (and perhaps funeral) are so extensively covered by secondary sources that it could have a stand-alone article. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So that's the only criterion now. Although still seems somewhat subjective. Is that written down somewhere as guidance/ policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The criterion is this, from In_the_news, and I quote "Deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story...or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation" are the standard criteria for the blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's ONE of the criterion. The other of which is a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which is the one the Mr. Bogle would ostensibly qualify. My take is that he is unquestionably major and transformative, but perhaps his field is too narrow. I'm a weak support on the blurb (notwithstanding quality concerns). ghost 21:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed out a bit - "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." This is not one of those.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point; I withdraw my support. I do stand by my distaste for people cherry-picking criteria (or making up their own). ghost 19:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This article has been tagged with multiple tags. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The infobox photo is a proabable copyright violation (no credible evidence of free license) and I have nominated it for deletion: see deletion discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Zimbabwe fuel protests

 * Oppose but weakly, seems like a relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue, but in any case, the article is very decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way is it a "relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue"?--Discott (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to answer that. It's borderline interesting, it's barely of encyclopedic value, it's probably irrelevant in the "2019 calendar".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh I would not say that to a Zimbabwean or someone from southern Africa. Would a similar event of the same scale in the USA (for example) also be borderline interesting?  Also why is it irrelevent in the 2019 calendar? It did take place entirely in 2019 after all.--Discott (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh indeed. In response to your question, it's got nothing to do with the calendar, I'm just not seeing it's in the news.  Please try to remember what I said when I made my first post, it was weak opposition and I acknowledged that the article was in a reasonable condition.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read today in my local paper that Roundup 360 was banned in France. I don't suppose that will have been ITN either. ^^  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the entry is well written and referenced. SashiRolls t ·  c 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – This news is getting international traction with BCC, CNN, and Al Jazeera reporting on it. In light of deaths, seriousness of the situation, and good quality of the article. I support blurb or some alternative. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The government has shutdown the internet. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Quite in the news and the article is fairly OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mason Lowe

 * Is he notable? Article only created today, all references from his life are to local news or bull-riding websites. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NRODEO says "Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition." Lowe contested the "Built Ford Tough World Finals" from 2015-17, which seems to have been the top event in bull-riding at the time. ghost 22:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 9th in the world in his sport at one point, and only the third bull rider killed by bulls (since association founded). --Kyerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I see no issues. ghost 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article updated Kyerjay (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support National coverage from CBS, Foxnews, CNN, The Guardian, CBSSports Net, and USA Today. I have links so these could be added to article. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 00:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is now stale, but given that it has been marked as "ready" I didn't close the nomination (as a non-admin closure) so that an administrator could decide if they wanted to post it or not. --`DannyS712 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * May be stale, but given that the template currently has only 3 rds, it should be okay to add this... --DannyS712 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Nairobi hotel attack

 * Support: Minimal though the article is, it appears well-sourced; this is getting play on the promos for the national evening news here in the U.S. so there's international interest. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Should have added this after fixing up the blurb/nom for Shadychiri. Article is short but sourced and will only grow as more details unfold. --M asem (t) 00:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the article has some meat on its bones. Right now it's a stub and we don't promote stubs on the main page. Support in principle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Notable, but agree with Orientem that the article really should be fleshed out some before a blurb is posted. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Notable enough to be included.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article could be expanded per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)\
 * Support This is a very big news story in Africa, the article is also detailed enough on the event. --Discott (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment has been ready to post for five hours or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Failed Brexit Vote in UK Parliament

 * Comment the last part of the sentence, "leaving in doubt whether the UK will withdrawal from the European Union" seems unnecessarily speculative. It could just as well have said ""leaving in doubt whether the UK will leave the European Union with a deal" or something similar. Nobody knows what will happen now, to be frank. Yakikaki (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the government falls. Otherwise this is just the latest chapter in the never ending Brexit drama. We rarely post non-events... i.e. the Commons did not pass the government's Brexit deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if we get a new PM or a general election out of it, let's re-visit, otherwise this is just another facet of the ongoing omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If TRM (which I will take as an expert on all matters UK) deems this not appropriate, I would not be against a speedy close. Everything I read about this seems to make this a big thing, stateside, but if the UK just sees this as just part of the Brexit situation, then let's keep it to that. --M asem (t) 20:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most of the EU at this point just waits until 29 March is here so we can finally get rid of those drama queens on the island. Regards So  Why  21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's more than a tiny chance we're going to stay in, so better get used to the queens once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Minor point: back in November, you said that 'Parliament voting against the "deal"' was worthy of posting. But things changes very quickly on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I said it was "useful news", nothing about "worthy of posting". Given that we're now in a cycle of continual rejection, posting it is probably not actually even useful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though you did say that in response to my post that asked 'what are the key events that would justify an ITN/C nomination?'. Anyway, when has ITN ever been about posting "useful news"? Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "justify an INT/C nomination" equates to "worthy of posting". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was a fairly guaranteed fail, everyone predicted it. Wait to see if May resigns. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - mainly per TRM. Nothing much has happened yet. Fallout therefrom may be a story, or may not be. The big story will be on Brexit day, currently scheduled for 29 March. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait: Defeats like this are unprecedented, and so are motions of no confidence. I'll defer judgement until tomorrow night. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for the vote of no confidence tomorrow. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing as the no-confidence vote was defeated. This is an ongoing news story very much in the news.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * But even then there's no definitive outcome. I guess a vote of no confidence in the government itself might just about be newsworthy, but even then I'm not sure it's that big a deal compared to what's going on in the backdrop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing Brexit is major news every day in the UK and this will continue as the deadline approaches. As there will be further twists and turns, an entry in Ongoing would be appropriate to help readers find our coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment no offence to the esteemed Wikipedians above, who of course comment in good faith, but it's at times like this that it becomes clear how unfit for purpose ITN really is. And I say this every time. This vote is by far the most significant thing to befall the UK in recent years. It was the biggest defeat by a sitting government in Parliament since democracy began. Yes, it was predicted, but it sets in motion an utterly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic series of events. The no confidence vote tomorrow is a red herring. It will not succeed. But today's story is the headline. Across the world. And of course it should be posted. It probably won't, but it should. There endeth the rant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support one would be hard-pressed to find a country where this isn't in the news. Post now, update as new information comes. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Change the statement : The statement is not neutral at this moment.-- 1233 Talk 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, per others, to see if this develops into either May resigning or the government falling on tomorrow's confidence vote (which I doubt will happen, as May is too smart to let that happen if (or more likely, when) she realizes she won't win and tenders her resignation). Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. She might just scrape though tomorrow's vote. And even if she doesn't, she is not obliged to resign or call a General Election. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. 325 to 306 was a bit of a scrape. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the coverage of the defeat is on meaningful vote, and 2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry has been created. How about an alt-blurb combining those two articles? Would that garner more support? Moscow Mule (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it probably would. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Suggested alt-blurb in box. Still not great... Moscow Mule (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it doesn't actually decide anything, but would suggest moving to Ongoing - this is going to move quickly now and generate a lot of stories. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems to fit the bill, or lack of it, here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a significant milestone in a major international story which has dominated headlines for years it seems absurd to not post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is, this particular stage is largely not news as it was expected and everyone not living under a rock knew that was going to be the result and its not even the most important step in the whole leave process. The process that started with the leglislation to leave, and will end at the end of March (assuming it doesnt get reversed by then). The no-confidence motion will be news if it passes, but not if it doesnt, but even if it does pass it then only triggers a 14 day window for the government to try and deal their way out of it, if they cant pass another no confidence motion within 14 days, it then triggers a general election (which takes place 25 days after that) - at this point we are near the end of Feb, if that results in a change of Gov, the new Gov then needs to either decide if its holding a new referendum, decide if its taking the deal on the table, attempt to negotiate a new deal with the EU, or just continue to crash out. It could also unilaterally pass legislation to reverse the leave. All of the above are important news-worthy stages, but its going to be spread out over a 2 month period, far too long for 'ongoing'. And some/all of the various options might not take place. So it might be better to have a quick RFC on what main results to include rather than waiting for them to come up individually (if they do). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for BrExperts: Is "Meaningful vote" really the best name for this article? Will people looking for it be able to find it in a few years' time?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as blurb; Ongoing would get my support. At the moment it's just another step on a very long path (and is "bill failed to pass" really an ITN story?) There are several potential outcomes to this which may be on the MP in the next few days/weeks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the vote was 432 against and 202 in support of the deal, which was the largest majority against a United Kingdom government ever. Surprised this is not in the proposed blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True, which is certainly a better blurb, but on reflection I still think Ongoing is better for now - there will be more of this to rumble on over the next 11+ weeks (or even longer) that will be more newsworthy than a parliamentary voting record. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait for the outcome of the confidence vote. If May loses the confidence vote, then I would support, with that information added to the blurb.  If May wins the confidence vote, then I would oppose and would wait until Brexit itself, which is only a couple of months away if May wins. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
 * I'm glad you have a crystal ball - Brexit is only one possible outcome, whether she wins or loses! - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support an entry in ongoing, or potentially an individual entry with wording similar to Martin's comment above. To quote the live news feed from the BBC (entry at 08.39 today), "Theresa May's historic Commons defeat is splashed across the front pages of papers across the globe" (my emphasis). To those who say that this was expected and just another chapter, well, we currently have the US federal government shutdown in 'ongoing', and I don't see that as substantively more significant than the whole Brexit shenanigans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Brexit has been going on for years. The assumption is that it is going to happen unless a clear, specific event occurs (like a second referendum) to forestall it. The U.S. government shutdown is completely unpredictable and no one knows what is going to happen with it, it's unprecedented in terms of length, and it's having a significant and ongoing impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have we got a Brexit vs US Govt Shutdown competition now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - back in November, I started a section at WT:ITN (the talk page for 'In The News', link is to the archived version) to see what thoughts people had about how to handle potential ITN items relating to Brexit and related articles. It may be worth resuming that discussion in the coming days and weeks. User:Sca commented back then that posting the result of the vote should be considered. I think the scale of the historic defeat is what should possibly be posted here. If this was not Brexit, but a parliamentary defeat of this scale on another matter in 'normal' times, we would very likely be posting it (because it would lead to the government collapsing/resigning). But these are not normal times for British parliamentary democracy. Back in November, when opining what would rise to the level of an ITN entry, I said: actual change of PM and/or government, result of any new referendum, formal moment of any Brexit, and hardly anything else. Though this comes close. On balance, I would say an entry now is justifiable. The scale of the defeat will be seen as one of the key moments. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - as usual, the purpose of ITN is utterly ignored in the rush to come up with reasons why this shouldn't be posted. Purpose #1 is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. It undoubtedly meets that. Purpose #2 is To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. The update on this particular vote is admittedly short, but the Brexit article as a whole is well-written and informative, and there is no doubt that readers will be looking for it this week. I acknowledge the caveat about not posting continual updates on the same topic, and I wouldn't have supported any of the previous "developments" that have been rumbling on day after day for the past two months, but this is really the big one. The vote we've been waiting for forever, the government lost it by the biggest margin in history, and despite being predicted, it still changes the course of things completely and has been the top story in all major countries of the world. And going forward I would not expect any further blurbs on Brexit until either a referendum is held, or we crash out in March with no deal, or a deal is agreed and we leave. But those are all weeks or months away. So yes I think we should post this one, but no I don't think that would set a precedent that every other Brexit item will be posted. This is the biggy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Voyager is leaving the solar system and Britain is leaving the EU. Rather than trying to figure out the milestones from our own opinions, look at any major news outlet in the world. What is today’s headline?  This.  Either post it or put it in ongoing. Voyager has no practical impact on daily life.  Jehochman Talk 10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And Voyager wasn't even asked to pay €25.4 billion as an exit fee. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is just another step in the process. There's plenty more where this came from.  The only justifiable way of posting Brexit right now is to add it to Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing, or weak support altblurb - per The Rambling Man. And, for all the people saying it's massive news and such a shift ... it's talked about, around the world, in such vague terms that nobody knows what it changes. Especially the British people, who assumed it was going to fail, so it changes nothing. Though it does guarantee Brexit won't be shut up about at all for a long time - so ongoing. And, symbolically, it is significant, with an overwhelming defeat and the potential but unlikely vote against the government. --Kyerjay (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Wait until a general election is called, if it even happens. Nihlus  13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now. Have to backpedal from what I said in Nov. about posting the Commons vote, as things still seem to be in a state of flux (if not chaos), and Tuesday's vote doesn't seem so "historic" after all. If only the British pols would either do something or get off the throne, so to speak. Sca (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's no doubt the vote was historic, given the magnitude of the government's defeat, but it's local politics, has not affected the process one iota, and is merely one step in a seemingly infinite number of steps which seem destined to us reneging on Article 50. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Historic in a general or global sense. However significant for near-term UK politics, its real-world effect is negligible and the Brexit vote doesn't qualify. If one takes the long view of British democracy's long history, it's a minor event. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely historic in a parochial sense. Like a minor league baseball record or something.  You'll note a significant number of people (some of us from the UK) are opposing this nomination.  I think we have a clue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since May is said likely to survive today's no-confidence pageant, I could see sticking this in Ongoing until something consequential happens. Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, Ongoing is the only viable place for it right now, but be prepared for it to sit there until late-March, possibly later, as these kinds of blips will be taking place between now and then. Is that what we really want, a Brexit note for 2+ months?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb or ongoing Major news worldwide. I think ongoing would be more appropriate, though, given the developments expected over the next few days. Davey2116 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult one. On one hand, it's something that didn't happen (i.e. the bill didn't pass), internal political squabbling, and we're no closer to knowing if/how Brexit will happen. On the other hand, the defeat was record-breaking, Brexit is the most important event in UK politics for decades, the vote will be of of historical encyclopaedic value, and this is very much 'in the news' worldwide. It's also part of an ongoing process which is taking too long to leave in the 'ongoing' section until it concludes, and there remains the remote possibility that it will cause the government to fall tonight. On balance, wait until we get the outcome of the no confidence vote this evening; if May loses or resigns I support a blurb, if she survives, as seems much more likely, I weak support ongoing, though am not sure which article would be best listed there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. An important story where new developments are likely to happen on a regular basis for the next couple of months. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding ongoing now I'm cool with this going into Ongoing, but please, everyone note that it will need to stay there for at least three months. Is that what we use Ongoing for?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If they really extend the exit date for...actually, not sure what they plan to do but they seem keen on doing that for some reason..., it might even stay there for six months or longer. That seems excessive. Regards So  Why  20:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are going to be a number of headline-busting events in the next few weeks relating to Brexit. Most of us Brits don't think this should be on the Main Page at all (ironically) but if it is heading there, then Ongoing and be prepared for three months of it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per TRM's acquiescence above. I think it's hard to deny that this story is newsworthy in its own right.--WaltCip (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggested another blurb, needs some trimming, but I think such a blurb is better at the moment than having an ongoing Brexit for 3 months and maybe much longer. --Tone 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, a blurb for this micro-decision is unnecessary. This event has changed literally nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that nothing has changed. The unacceptability of May's deal has now been fully exposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that was never in doubt, ever, at any point. Just look at RS.  Not one single one of them had any doubt this was going to be a shambles.  Just like all of Brexit.  This vote is parochially notable but actually absolutely meaningless in the overall Brexit process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't post news items based on WP:CRYSTAL. The actual result of the vote was the event, it was the proof. The size of the defeat makes it historically significant, regardless of any "Brexit process." Just my personal view. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I think I'm aware of CRYSTAL. The actual result was "so what".  A big deal in British political history, but not unexpected and changes nothing.  Like posting a minor league baseball record.  Who cares?  Whether it was lost by 1 vote or 200 votes, the result was utterly predictable.  We wouldn't expect to post such stories from the US or any other country in the world, why is the UK any different?  Nothing changed, nothing unexpected happened.  Next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Tom Harris in The Daily Telegraph who today said: "Politics is littered with milestones. We passed a pretty important one yesterday". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. And Tom is employed to sell newspapers.  But thanks for your nostalgic approach, it's really valued.  Surprised we're not getting a dodgy YouTube video to accompany it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nostalgia strictly ain't what it used to be. But be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment do we need to post it? It's not hard to search Brexit if someone wants more info, but it's not like most ITN news and noms where there's simple headline + article with lots of contextual and further information people won't know about. It would be simple headline + nothing more; people know the context, and there's nothing more to say about the votes than no to deal, meh to government. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Info Also posting update for anyone not in the UK at the minute - May has announced she will give a speech at 2200 UTC (in about 10 minutes), will update if something comes from that. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Has she? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean there's going to be a "statement" at 10pm (which looks likely to be delayed because of a football match). Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeh, quite reflective of UK politics Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, another meaningless political statement. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Nothing of interest, besides mentioning that all the parties have been and will be working together, except Labour who have gone all Isolationist but are still invited. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing – In view of what's happened, Ongoing seems appropriate. (Or as Ben Bradlee is reputed to have said, "Stick it inside somewhere.") – Sca (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Brexit and the related negotiations have been going on for almost 2 years now, and it has not been a feature of the "ongoing" section throughout that time. If there are major developments in the process over the next few months, they warrant their own discussion in ITN. But 3 months of (possible) minor developments should not be what the ongoing section is for. PotentPotables ( talk ) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing for now. If nothing of consequence occurs in a reasonable time frame, kill it. Sca (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * to Ongoing, per rough consensus above. Suggest reviewing in a week with a view to pulling it if no progress has occurred. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Laurent Gbagbo acquitted of crimes against humanity

 * Tentative support, however, the update is thin and the blurb should mention the 2010 crisis. --Tone 19:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Article has a severe referencing issue. Entire sections without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on referencing/quality. Otherwise an appropriate ITN blurb. --M asem (t) 20:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support acquittals are as notable as convictions. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The acquital of Gbagbo brings into fore the chain of mistrials and acquitals that have befelled the ICC. They stated they had a strong case only for it to wither away. this is something that shouldn't be let go silently Shadychiri (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per notable judgement.BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would like to see some reactions to the acquittal in the article before posting.  Spencer T• C 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple (mass celebrations in IC, but general concern about the ICC's role in future cases). --M asem  (t) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when the article's cn-tags are addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose acquittals are seldom as notable as convictions, it's entirely contextual, but in this case it's a big deal. Can't post with BLP violations though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once quality issues are addressed. ICC judgments on heads of state (whether convictions or acquittals) are very rare and important. Neutralitytalk 01:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No sourcing issues are apparent on the article now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from the four [citation needed] tags of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carol Channing

 * Weak oppose some paras unreferenced in the main prose and the awards/noms table almost completely uncited. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. With the exception of some redlinked husbands, it seems gtg. —  Wylie pedia  @ 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. A couple of citations needed but awards nominations referenced. The two instances where citations are missing are not essential to the article and the text could be amended pending references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually there looks like there are currently six [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are eleven at the time of this edit. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The citations needed tags are just the beginning of the problem. Several of references are to YouTube video clips of her movies and interviews on television talk shows. Much of this article may be original research. Her YouTube videos are worth a watch and very entertaining but they are not reliable sources.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but they do pose a problem. If she talked about herself on a television interview on a recognized television program, and we can cite show, episode, air date, etc. then that's acceptable as a reliable source. We cannot however link to YouTube videos that aren't uploaded by the show's copyright holder. Spot-check shows most of the video links are clear copyright vios in this sense. That's a major problem, but if they can be changed to cite video templates without the YouTube link, then that's better. --M asem  (t) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliance on primary sources is pretty bad. Large portions of the personal life section is sourced to divorse court documents hosted on Justia. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has severe issues with its references. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) Paweł Adamowicz

 * Comment I actually think a blurb would be more appropriate here. The story is headline news in the UK whereas him dying of natural causes would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb article is close to a stub. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb...RD is useless. Political asassinations in Europe are extremely rare. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - rare assassination of a politician, in Europe.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much is unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That issue has been resolved now. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty much everything save for the assault is unreferenced. Support blurb Mayor of a major Polish city killed by a madman - worth the ITN Openlydialectic (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The article is in much better shape now. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD While there are a few cites missing from the awards section the article is adequate, if barely, for RD. Oppose blurb This was a mayor, not a national political office holder. And the article, while acceptable for RD, is nowhere near good enough for a blurb. It is only barely a start class. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A few of the awards still lack citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD - It's pretty big deal here in Poland. It's the first assassination since 1930's --TheDFPL (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb It seems this is a major story in European news. In my opinion it satisfies the criteria in WP:ITNRD. — bieχχ (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support blurb but the article needs some work with references, for example, most of the awards are unreferenced (blue links do not count). --Tone 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD on improvements, oppose blurb It's an assassination, but of a city's mayor by a criminal that blames the city for his incarceration. It's a very localized domestic situation, and not a result of some international plot. --M asem (t) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Assassinations of European politicians during these times in this manner nonetheless an assassination of a major city mayor in Poland is even rarer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted as RD but consensus is emerging for a blurb if sourcing can be improved on the article &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I fixed both citation-needed tags. w umbolo   ^^^  21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb All citation-needed tags have been resolved. Uses x (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb notable and acceptable quality --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull it's not adequately referenced, no-one appears to have checked this thoroughly enough before it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from a few minor awards ("Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Golden Cross") which could justifiably be removed from the article entirely, what isn't sourced? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The only unreferenced parts are four medals, and I would agree that these could be removed from the article if necessary. Uses x (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then fix it or remove it. Right now it's a blatant BLP violation and one which should have prevented any admin from posting it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsourced awards have been removed, as per BLP Uses x (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, of course that should have happened before it sat on the main page for a couple of hours, especially considering those concerns had been raised some hours before. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Blatant BLP violation" is a blatant stretch. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, unverifiable awards are just fine. Little wonder there's so little trust in some admins to reinforce such important policies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality is not binary, and there's a spectrum of quality between "not good enough to post" and "perfect". "Fine" lies somewhere in the middle.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, brilliant. But BLP is a bright line, we simply don't attribute awards to people without verification.  Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that bright. "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be" cited, which implies a) that material unlikely to be challenged may not necessarily require citation, and b) the difference is completely subjective. If you say John Doe won a Nobel prize and was granted the key to the city of Dubuque, I'm going to want the former cited but let the latter go. ghost 13:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bright line. We don't attribute awards to people without them being verifiable, that's very naughty.  Indeed, I know at least one person who was actually blocked for doing so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notable assassination, article now fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've marked it Ready for blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, waiting for protection to kick in before adding the image. Smurrayinchester 09:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash

 * Weak support worst aircrash of the year so far (I know...) and multiple fatalities. Article is okay considering the lack of details available. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant number of deaths from a commercial aviation disaster qualifies for ITN, and the article is short but well-sourced. --M asem (t) 16:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good and the death toll is quite high. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go. and death toll is significant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mel Stottlemyre

 * Support Good to go. I tip my hat to you for the good work.--- Coffee  and crumbs  05:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted good as gone. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extradition of Cesare Battisti

 * Oppose Plenty of issues - including referencing, updating ("Italy plans to appeal") and POV ("expiate his sentence") - but I'm going to oppose on significance. Good faith due to the long fight, but I don't think extradition itself is ever be important enough to post (outside of a head of state). ghost 12:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On notability, significance. (In rare cases, extradition could be worth a blurb – that of Julian Assange, for a hypothetical example.) – Sca (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just the fact that (Born 1954) has to be added to the article name shows that notability is in question. Good faith, but there's not a snowball's chance of this getting posted. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support. Important, finally the world has started to realize the radical left's danger, probably plenty more to come. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Do you support it or oppose it?--SirEdimon (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Masinga

 * Support the source given says cancer. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support covers all the main details and well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patricia Wald

 * Support Seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose five citation needed tags on a BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's poor. I've cited two of them and the other three sentences weren't really relevant to her, so I've removed them. All sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georgy Brady

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Meera Sanyal

 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has a promotional tone without sufficient secondary sources to back it up. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, sources and tone are dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed; reposting to RD depends on article improvements per above.  Spencer T• C 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article relies heavily on primary sources. Also, the tone is questionable at best. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Acting Presidency of Juan Guaidó

 * Comment He says he is ready to assume office, not that he has assumed office. Very different implication. --M asem (t) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * His speech said he was ready, then the NA press release says "the president of the National Assembly, deputy Juan Guaidó, assumed the powers of the Presidency of the Republic". Very specifically "assumed", as in, already did it. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This suggests tons of miscommunication going on here. And this suggests that for Guaido to take up the presidency, they have to have the military backing to knock Maduro out so that Guaido can step in. --M asem (t) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume the press release of the National Assembly of Venezuela knows a bit more about its leader than the Miami Herald does. Honestly, I did not think it would happen this immediately, but it seems to have done. (I've read the Caracas Chronicles piece, and yeah, it shows confusion, it's trying to interpret the words of Guaidó at the rally where he says a leader needs more than just saying he's leader. No matter what he meant, I think the later press release overwhelms any confusion.) Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot access the press release but I am going to assume it is in Spanish based on the link title. If that is the case, we need absolutely assurance on the translation, which I haven't seen yet in news. --M asem (t) 22:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a more recent report that suggests that the National Assembly is working a plan to transition the govt in a few weeks (by pleading to military offices to defect to their side), suggesting they have yet to put Gauido in office. --M asem (t) 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to be operating on "assumed Presidency, now we're working on kicking out the guy who won't leave". And, for your checks, the original text from the press release is "el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, diputado Juan Guaidó, asumió las competencias de la Presidencia de la República" — asumió is a preterite ("actions completed in the past") form of asumir (to assume) . Absolute assurance. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I can see the press release (your second source above, I presume) but do not see anything of that quoted Spanish language in there. Google Translate doesn't given anything of the impression that the NA has made the assumption Guaido is president, only that they want him to be president in the next few weeks as they build up support. --M asem (t) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just reopened the page. Yes, it has changed. That's strange -- the older version with my quoted text says 5:48pm, which is just over an hour ago. Both Guaidó's statements and the closing paragraph of the new version still say "Guaidó is legitimate and recognized as President, but we need to stage a coup before he can actually fulfill that role" Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the impression I get off a Google translate too, and more in line with how English news sources are reporting this. The NA is presenting Guaido as whom they want to put in as president once they can oust Maduro, hoping that helps to draw some military support to support a coup. Because this appears to be happening over a few weeks this might make this more a ongoing story. But I would also add that we are starting to see protests/rallys (100s to 1000s, but not large yet) in protest, so that may be part of a larger story. --M asem (t) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Venezuelan here. The main problem is the conflict between a de facto and a de jure presidency, and which one is it. Some argue that Guaidó assumed the presidency, and the OAS Secretary General recognized him as such, but others don't. In any case, I support a blurb about the new since it is noteworthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose just purely on the kind of tabloid-esque blurb being proposed. This is an encyclopedia, we're not going to post a blurb which makes some such "claim".  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose a better one? Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A good blurb should mention both Maduro and Guaido and their conflicting appointments. As written, it sounds as if the crisis was over and Guaido will be ruling from now on, which is hardly the actual case. Cambalachero (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I support this, per unusual"coup".BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb II - article looks ok after a cursory look. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The time has certainly come to post something...just what the **** that is I do not know. I'm going to go with a tenuous support ongoing for 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis. ghost 03:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this or ongoing per ghost. Definitely a significant story, and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, neither Guaidó nor the National Assembly has assumed Guaidó as president. They are preparing Guaidó to be president if they can usurp power. So Alt2 is completely wrong. I have provided Alt3 that describes the situation as I read it from sources. --M asem  (t) 05:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue with that is "prepare" is just begging to be told Wait, when they've made the biggest move in the last decade of crisis already, so I've tweaked it into Alt4 without changing the "not quite President yet"-ness. Kingsif (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116. But strongly oppose altblurb3 with its use of the word usurp, a thoroughly POV word which, as used in altblurb3, implies that Maduro is legitimate and Guaido and the National Assembly are illegitimate. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment We have far too many unusable altblurbs up there and should perhaps remove the ones that have been crossed out. Altblurb4 is seemingly the least bad at present, but it probably needs to be changed to 'and start the process of attempting to remove him' because the current wording leaves the impression that removing him is something fairly easy to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt3 is now "blurb", alt4 is now alt1. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've reworded the new blurb, as 'start to take rule' is bad English (at least where I come from). But other wording such as 'begin to try to remove the incumbent Nicholas Maduro' may perhaps better convey the original intended meaning (though I'm not sure of what exactly that was). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In both blurb and altblurb1 'President' may perhaps also be preferable to 'the incumbent' (which may make some readers ask 'incumbent what?').Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "presidential crisis" probably makes it clear. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Looks like this belongs in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and per ghost I'd be willing to support either as a blurb or as ongoing but this situation is too critical to not post something. That being said, the altblurbs have changed many times as the story developed, so while it is blurb-worthy on notability, ongoing is also a viable option while the crisis continues. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing or the "Alternative blurb".--SirEdimon (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing or the Alternative blurb. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Wording still seems a bit awkward, but the ERRORS crowd will help out there I'm sure. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion I'd replace "presidential crisis" with "constitutional crisis." -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Juan Guaidó has been detained which means now he won't be able to take over incumbent president Maduro I believe we should change the blurb to mention this. (BBC) --Bluecrab2 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Briefly detailed" means he's free again. Not a major change yet. --M asem (t) 17:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I've tweaked the blurb to closer match the text of the article; the article discusses that Guaidó was declared acting president by the NA, and that the NA disputed the election results. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing, still murky. Either wait or Ongoing – Sca (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Michael Atiyah

 * Comment a few cns but overall fairly good shape. Will support in a few hours, once the initial updates are done. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a citation that I could find. The 2 remaining tags are very technical details that I couldn't find specific sources for, but the claims are backed up by other (wikipedia) articles that don't have CN tags, suggesting that, in this specific field, it may be common knowledge. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD - article is in decent shape; hugely notable and influential mathematician Spiderone  10:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't oppose a blurb either Spiderone  16:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Only a handful of living mathematicians can be considered more influential, and the article is in solid shape. w umbolo   ^^^  12:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Fields medalist, very influential in mathematics. Davey2116 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, one of the eminent 20th century mathematicians, winner of both the Fields Medal and Abel Prize, the highest honors in mathematics. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * given the supports for a blurb, I have added one. Pinging those who previously commented on the RD nom - what do you think of the blurb? ( blurb inspired by Msk92's reasoning ) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes sure, looks good to me, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Davey2116 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb I would reserve RD-blurbs either for particularly shocking events, or for artists or statesmen who are household names whose deaths are making front pages around the world. Yes, the Atiyah-Singer theorem is important. But he is not in the same league of impact on the popular consciousness as a Mandela, a Thatcher, a Bowie.  (For the record also, winning both the Abel prize and the Fields medal is not particularly unique: according to Wikidata  six Abel prize winners out of the 20 so far were also Fields medallists).  Jheald (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * to RD. If consensus for a blurb emerges, then we can relocate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD The article was not ready for Main Page. There are several issues that need to be resolved and copy edited. Oppose blurb as not meeting our criterion.--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He proved the Riemann hypothesis. It's hard to get more significant than that. 108.214.193.21 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, per Nsk92. He was at the top of his field internationally for decades in the second half of the 20th century. I've done some minor c/e to the article but can't help with the maths. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb While Atiyah was famous in the field of maths, he's nowhere close to the same league as Thatcher, Bush, David Bowie, and other household names who have merited a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But the ITNRD guidelines say "major transformative world leaders in their field" qualify for a blurb. There's no question that Atiyah was hugely transformative in his field (which is not by any means a narrow one). Davey2116 (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment As I have in the CFP debate every year, I will caution against inventing new criteria ("household name") to reject a candidate. My reading of the rule is basically: "There was no greater living X than Y" (one may have equals but not betters), assuming X is not overly narrow. ghost 13:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as nom. Also, I have changed the section heading to "(Posted to RD) Michael Atiyah" to make it clear that it is still being debated for inclusion as a blurb. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb His death isn't on the Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie level in terms of reaction. That's what it'd take to get me to support a blurb for the death of an 89 year old. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a valid !oppose since the "Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie standard" is not policy. Davey2116 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb, a blurb would be a travesty flying in the face of years of consensus. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is what RD is for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Macedonia renaming

 * Support pending updates Oppose Not yet ratified (that will be in the next few weeks) according to the AP. (Noting that a previous ITNC nom suggested waiting until it is official). --M asem (t) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the AP as saying the full deal (where Greece supports EU membership) isn't approved, but the name change is approved. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, you are right, its the deal with Greece still needed ratification, the naming needing to be done before Greece seemed ready to talk. --M asem (t) 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But now it looks like sources say your initial read was correct: Macedonia will start using it only after the parliament in Athens also ratifies the agreement. The Guardian. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Historic decision.BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - This has been a very slow-moving process (people at the Macedonia talk page archives have been trying to rename the page to North Macedonia since last June) and while this is absolutely a major step in the process, it's not done just yet. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 04:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - We seemingly need to see formal Greek approval first (and the Greek Government has seemingly just lost its majority in Parliament). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment- Re article quality, I fail to see any explanation in the article as to why the new name is an improvement (as distinct from a logical disimprovement that is being welcomed for other short-term reasons). Perhaps there are no reliable sources to explain this (possibly because it makes little or no sense to add a longer name, and one that logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia, which is seemingly at least partly why the Greeks objected to the old name in the first place, only the new name seems to make that problem worse). I suspect I may not be the only reader who is thus a bit confused and dissatisfied with article quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand [tha name] logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia at all. Are you suggesting that South Africa considers itself just temporarily separated from the rest of Africa, or that North Carolina secretly dreams of its troops one day marching triumphantly into Charleston? &#8209; Iridescent 10:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That nice Reverend Ian Paisley also comes to mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait - most likely but it wont be just this article that would need to be changed. In the past because this area about the 'name' had attracted controversies, after much discussion a WP:MOSMAC decided on a naming convention and for now that is in force until a new one is done etc.Resnjari (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Process evidently not complete; broader significance debatable. Ongoing at best. Sca (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support how long are we going to wait for? This has passed several milestones already. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is maintenance tagged, and the rename hasn't actually happened. Nothing to report.   Patently clear that this is not something an encyclopaedia should be promoting at this stage.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kevin Fret

 * Stale, he died on 10 January and the oldest item in RD is from 11. Check if you can still nominate it at DYK. --Tone 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Theo Adam

 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Inauguration of Nicolás Maduro

 * Since Maduro was already President, the head of state is not actually changing so this is not ITNR(I say this without commenting on the merits as a regular nomination). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We did post when Maduro was re-elected back last May, and we do not generally post inaugurations. The call for a coup as well as various international reactions is not sufficient to pst as ITN. --M asem (t) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As a comment, I cannot find any source that confirms a state of emergency has been declared (at least, from English sources). --M asem (t) 00:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been reported in Spanish-language sources, although whether this specific declaration grants the National Assembly special powers in Venezuela is not clear from the articles (as is implied by the State of emergency article), and seems to be more the NA calling for drastic action and stating that Venezuela is in an emergency (rather than a State of Emergency).  Spencer T• C 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it allows the NA to bypass the Supreme Court, not 100%, though. Kingsif (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The NA declared themselves in "an emergency". And I don't think that grants any special power to them, because in fact they don't have any power despite being elected. The fact is that Venezuela is now in a caos, with a president who has no recoginition from any important country in the region, but holds the "de facto" power since he controls the army and a NA that despite legally elected and internationally recognised has no real power in the country.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I think this is not yet notable for ITN. If they are simply stating that Maduro's new term is similar to a emergency as to try to draw citizen and foreign support, that's just talk and not anything actionable. If it truly a state of emergency declared, that's different. --M asem (t) 06:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s at least a true state of emergency to the extent that other nations are willingly cutting diplomatic ties to Maduro’s government and officially recognising Guaidó’s. (Would the limits of being able to have a state of emergency under dictatorial pressure add to the emergency, discuss?) Kingsif (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who has "officially" recognized? That's a game-changer. ghost 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Germany is the one ref I can easily find (it's in current). I definitely read that maybe Mike Pence (someone high in US) Mike Pompeo that is, gave a statement on it. Here's the US and Canada. Yeah. Also, there's a lot more news for "state of emergency" if you use the term "cabildo abierto" instead - an archaic Latin American term for big emergency meeting that's probably being used by the NA for patriotism points. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is a world of difference criticizing a leader and official recognition of the opposition (re: US & Canada; no hablo espanol re:Germany) ghost 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * US statements from Pence and Pompeo (the latter saying "Today, we reiterate our support for Venezuela’s National Assembly, the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people. It is time for Venezuela to begin a transitional process that can restore the constitutional, democratic order by holding free and fair elections that respect the will of the Venezuelan people."  ) go quite a bit further than that, if you want to read. The Germany article opens with "El gobierno de Alemania expresó su apoyo a la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela para que asuma el Poder Ejecutivo", which I'm sure you can put in google translate. Not sure what you're reading for Canada, the linked article directly says  "[Canada] rejects the legitimacy of the new presidential term of Nicolás Maduro. We call on him to immediately cede power to the democratically-elected National Assembly"  . Another nation is Kosovo, small but still. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel the altblurb accurately reflects the sources, no?


 * Support The situation in Venezuela is the most serious crisis in the Western Hemisphere within a generation. The article on the office of president of Venezuela is not up to scratch and should not be bolded (or even linked IMO). Otherwise we can discuss the wording of the blurb, but I agree that this is an ITN worthy event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the re-election of Maduro has already been posted; an inauguration is just a logical consequence and I would only post it if some game-breaking event took place in it that grows beyond the mere inauguration (but I'm not aware of any such development here). I'm even less inclined to post the inauguration of a re-elected president, as it is just a ceremony, and the same person keeps ruling the country. As for the state of emergency, as said above, that only counts if the country was actually in a formal state of emergency; the dictator has deprived the NA of any actual power, so Guaidó's words may be meaningless. And for the call of a coup, again, that's newsworthy only if a coup (or a significant coup attempt) actually takes place. Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Cambalachero, Masem. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Bolded articles are up-to-snuff, and the Venezuelan crisis is a major event being covered extensively in reliable news sources. I'd like to see a rewritten blurb, because the one we have is not great, it buries the lead.  The lead is not the inauguration, the lead is the NA President calling for revolution.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt2 is clumsy, but is reordered to put the significant story first. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – "Calling for" is not the same as doing, launching, leading. (Also, at 36 words – or 37 with the grammatically necessary "The" before "president" – Alt2 is rather long.) – Sca (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He's begun the process of, but that's even longer. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo general election

 * Support ITN drought. 100 million country. There was a chance Kabila would try to remain a president, so the fact that opposition won is both a surrpise and an important event in the history of this country as it closes the Kabila chapter for good. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks fairly good. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently detailed and referenced prose, current event, covered appropriately by news sources. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support - Major election & the article is very detailed. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anatoly Lukyanov

 * The second paragraph in the lede seems to contain heavy editorializing and is the only unsourced paragraph there. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian ship sinks in the Black Sea

 * Comment – Of marginal significance. Stubby article needs verb-tense updating. Sca (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – not really of immediate worldwide interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Private or non-passenger-carrying transport disasters are generally not ITN-worthy, barring extraordinary circumstances, which I'm not seeing here. --M asem (t) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edwin Erickson

 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insufficient coverage of his political career. Edwin_Erickson lists committees that he was on, but what were important pieces of legislation he passed, what political positions did he take, special projects, etc.? gives examples of some things he was involved in during his time in county government.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added some more. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. I have marked this as ready given that its been over a day since the last comment and we haven't seen any "oppose" !votes. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unmarking ready; there are remaining [citation needed] tags in the article. Once those are resolved, this is good to go.  Spencer T• C 01:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * remarked as ready. Citations added for every single CN tag present! --DannyS712 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship

 * Note I fixed the section link --DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as updater – perfectly summed up by Muboshgu, there are countless sites providing live updates and stats; additionally, this Clemson team is the first since Penn in 1897 to finish a season 15–0, making the game that much more historic. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comment – some sources for the 1897 Penn claim: (1) Penn's 1897 Football Team Last To Win National Title With 15-0 Record; Alabama, Clemson Looking To Join Tonight, (2) Guys, 15-0 Clemson might be even better than the 1897 Penn Quakers!, (3) 15-0: The 1897 Penn football team. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a pretty big thing--but in the US only. The Guardian has been pretty US-focused as well. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this hardly makes the news outside of the US. I supported it last year, but only because the blurbs were old; this is not the case right now. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I support having an article on the outcome of the game providing the article is well-referenced and up to scratch. At the moment it needs referencing in several sections most notably related to match stats. If referencing is fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing for the play-by-play and game statistics has now been added. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as a contributor – coverage outside the US includes Canada, UK, and Mexico. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whereas the NCAA Basketball is a true tourney approach based on season records and a bracket elimination tourney, the BCS for football is nowhere close to a true championship series, as it involves the subjective placement of teams by coaches and reporters, rather than any outright measurement of skill. --M asem (t) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – for what it's worth: (1) FBS college football retired use of the BCS system following the 2013 season; this season is the fifth in which the champion has been decided from the four-team College Football Playoff system; (2) the teams that participate in the College Football Playoff are the top four teams in the final College Football Playoff rankings, which are decided upon by the CFP committee, not "coaches and reporters"; (3) said College Football Playoff committee is made up of thirteen members, which is more than can be said about the NCAA basketball tournament's nine-member selection committee; (4) the size of a tournament does not make it notable - take, for example, The Basketball Tournament 2018 - the mere fact that it has more teams than the CFP (72 vs. 4) does not make it more notable (TBT does not make any appearances on the main page); (5) Most of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament's 68 participants are far less notable than the CFP's 4 participants (for example, 2017–18 Radford Highlanders men's basketball team vs. 2018 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team is really a no contest); and (6) you provide no evidence that the CFP is not, as you say, "a true tourney approach based on season records," as wins and losses are some of the main criteria that the CFP committee consider.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The committee has at their disposal the famous Sagarin ratings, very scientific and made by a computer that's incapable of human bias. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support While it may not be news outside the US, it is still news and is being covered by every major US newspaper. Another reason I support is that while it may not be a true championship, it's still widely covered and it is watched by many people. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose posting any amateur university sporting contest (yes that includes the Boat Race). These are not the top level of competition in any sport, of interest mostly to alumni, of extremely limited eligibility, and fall far short of the standards we should apply to sporting blurbs on ITN. Even worse in this case, the (semi-)finalists are chosen subjectively, not even from a proper tournament. Every year someone nominates this, and every year it gets shot down. Just no. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . I can guarantee you the 10% of Americans that watched aren't mostly alumni. There are thousands of colleges in the US and 39% of Americans left school between their 16th birthday and end of grade 12 and don't have a college alma mater at all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the college basketball tourney is ITN/R. Consensus is that "amateur" is not a valid reason to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but this is non-global trivia, hitting the news stands in precisely no (BBC News, BBC Sport, El Pais, Figaro, Bild, Repubblica) European countries. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – as was pointed out by 331dot above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."
 * Comment No, I'll continue to oppose the posting of MPT. And if you could remember to sign your posts, we'll all be a little better off.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't buy the argument of the playoff system giving the NCAA Football tournament more legitimacy. If you can be undefeated UCF with a perfect W/L record and still be shut out of the playoffs by one-loss Oklahoma, your system is a sham. But more to the point, sports stories have a higher bar to cross in order to be posted on ITN. As a sport, it's not notable internationally, despite being a national sensation. It functions as a gateway into pro football for amateur players, and that's really the crux of the matter and why this never gets posted; we already post pro football. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma had stronger opponents (12.23 points stronger according to the most famous computer ranking (done by a statistician who's been doing this for decades)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support In response to WaltCip's point, yes we already post pro football but only one event per year - I think there is room for one college football event too, and it's definitely newsworthy. (By the way, is there a reason why the blurb links to Gridiron football and not the more familiar American football)?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Every rationale for opposition can be countered by a sporting event that is ITNR. 1. No global impact 2. Amateur event 3. Not the top tier etc. We post dozens of sporting events each year, but for some reason this one spurs immense fervor in opposition. What is the great harm in posting this? ghost 14:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – On lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article has quality prose, and is well updated, and subject is a recent event being covered sufficiently by major news sources. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The college football national championship is a major news story in the US, and the article looks well updated and well sourced. The objections to posting seem to be based either on the fact that it isn't a major news story outside the US, or that the current playoff system doesn't do a good job of choosing the champion.  The former objection is clearly invalid based on the instructions on this page, while the latter objection seems to have nothing to do with the criteria for posting. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Dmoore5556. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Every single year this gets posted on Candidates and every single year it gets a ton of Oppose votes. I don't understand why people don't think this is a event worth posting, it is covered by all major news outlets in the US and tons of people watch it every year. College football is one of the most-watched sports in the US, and the people here should treat it like it is. Swordman97  talk to me  23:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you've lived in a country where English is not the main language of communication, you'll understand why this gets a ton of oppose votes. Banedon (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The points made that this has a lot of coverage and the article is very well updated do not compensate that this is an amateur competition, the playoff featured four selected teams and that the sport is not as popular as football or tennis. Some people may argue that there should be more place for such sport stories on the main page but my opinion is a resounding no. The recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup had better coverage than this with a very well update on its final and, unlike this one, it featured the best players in the world in a much more popular sport. But it did not get posted and it shouldn't, leaving no chance for this either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Michigan Stadium, a college stadium, is the largest capacity stadium in the United States; other college stadiums are close behind. College football is just as if not more popular than NFL professional football(whose championship is ITNR) Marketing, staff salaries, and "scholarships"(i.e. salaries) make this not a simple amateur competition. "Not as popular as football(soccer) and tennis" would rule out most ITNR listed sports. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was, but I don't recall the 2018 FIFA Club World Cup being nominated. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't buy the arguments that the stadium has the highest capacity and that this is even more popular than the NFL. Most ITNR-listed sport items are just the top-tier competition or events that make a global impact by allowing all countries in the world to field teams but there are also some that do not merit inclusion on their recurrence. The loophole in that listing is, however, not compelling in support to this. We have the Super Bowl in less than a month, which is the best of its kind, and that's enough for this sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eleven soccer competitions are ITNR, as are five rugby union championships, so I don't buy the argument "with the NFL enough football is posted". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is precisely one country where gridiron football is popular, where as association foot ball is enjoyed in well over 50 countries, rugby in at least a dozen. hence why we should not give one sport centric to one one country more itn slots. --M asem (t) 09:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canadians might disagree. Please point me to the rule which says sports only get one slot a year per country. It isn't the NFL's fault that college football is as, if not more popular. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do the Canadians play the same football as the Americans? Banedon (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not quite as different as Rugby League vs. Union, but pretty different. You'd expect the 2nd tier NFL castoffs to dominate the CFL, but that doesn't happen much. The NFL and American college game is quite different as well. The rule differences are seemingly negligible, but it has a dramatic effect on game play. ghost 12:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no "rule" outside of the general advice to work against systematic bias. Events in the US preferentially dominate the media so the fact that the NCAA game was reported far and wide is nothing out of the ordinary. But it still basically means that gridiron football is nearly an American-specific game (CFL does not yet have the same type of penetration). So we should be careful how much to promote a sport dominated by one country, and particularly being well aware of the impact of media from that country on worldwide coverage. --M asem  (t) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your points are not invalid, but this is not a slippery slope situation. We're talking about ONE additional gridiron event, totaling two. The 11/5 events cited by 331dot are just ITNR; we post others ad hoc as well. The support is massive and eclipses many events on ITNR. Earlier you objected to the selection criteria -- but there are multiple ITNR items (Ashes, TBR, The Rugby Championship) that have set invitees and make no attempt to invite the best teams. I get that many people don't like gridiron and see it as regional, but the idea that we would keep something off ITN because it is only relevant in the country where most of our readers are is absurd. The reason US editors are so passionate about this is because we are creating a profoundly odd experience for nearly half our readership when they come here today and see a darts competition and not the CFP. They don't perceive this as worldly; they see it as snobbish and anti-proletariat. "WP is for high-minded subjects. If we deign to mention sport, it shall be be only those favored in the Olde Country! Chess, Rugby, rowing competitions at thousand year old colleges... that sort of thing." ghost 12:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Events like Ashes and the Boat Race, even though they have select invites, are considered the top events in their respective sports. Whereas the NCAA championship is clearly second to the Super Bowl (and there, there's clearly a whole season and playoff structure to determine who plays). --M asem (t) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Considered the top events in their sports" is inherently problematic as it speaks to the somewhat odd organization of their sports. The Ashes may be the top test event, but it is not contested by the top test sides (nor does it attempt to). It's an apples to oranges comparison, but it's decidedly imbalanced to permit that while condemning CFP for its "subjective placement of teams...rather than any outright measurement of skill." ghost 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As User:Thryduulf said when closing last year's discussion, "there is consensus that being an amateur event is not, on it's own, a reason to oppose" – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not quote me with selective context, I actually wrote: "[T]here is consensus that being an amateur event is not, on it's own, a reason to oppose, but such events are not as inherently significant as professional ones in sports that have both. There is consensus that where an event is not the top level of the sport there needs to be some other indication of importance or significance, but there [was] no consensus for there being such in this case, particularly given the limited international interest." and all parts of that carry equal weighting. Consensus can of course change, and I have not assessed whether it has or has not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I misrepresented what you wrote. However, the evidence is that with the college basketball championship, Ashes, and Boat Race all on ITN/R, there is consensus that certain amateur contests are worthy. Otherwise they wouldn't be ITNR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about college basketball or why it's on ITNR, but The Ashes is not an amateur contest. The point I think you are missing is that it is not necessary to prove that amateur events in general are worthy of being posted at ITN, but you have to show why this amateur event is worthy of being posted at ITN - for example The Boat Race is by far the most significant rowing event in terms of public engagement, etc. despite it being an amateur event in a sport that also has professional contests. People all around the world who don't care one jot about rowing 364 days a year turn up/tune in to watch it live, and the same is true of the Superbowl. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, at least two of the oppose votes in this discussion are opposing it simply for being an amateur event. That was my only point in bringing up your closing statement from last year: that this should be judged on its own merits and not opposed for being amateur. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, it shouldn't be opposed simply for being an amateur event. It's generally opposed because it's a rather insignificant event compared to other events in its sport (e.g. Super Bowl) and other events of its level (e.g. Boat Race). Look at the comparisons in worldwide popularity, college playoffs even simply as a phrase means nothing to most. Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support International coverage; wide interest on par with other sporting events posted on ITN; solid prose update in the article.  Spencer T• C 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have two problems with this; one, is the fact it's something that isn't the top tier of the sport - indeed, it's actually amateur sport. We do occasionally post items along those lines, but they tend to be ones with worldwide appeal. So looking at that angle, it might well be very, very, popular in one country (and we shouldn't reject it purely because of that, per the ITN rules) ... but without wishing to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, on that basis we would be posting at ITN every time that India played Pakistan at test cricket - games that get many times the audience of this one - and that would be ridiculous.  The double effect of "not highest level in the sport" and "very much concentrated in one country" is what leads me to oppose this. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support International coverage demonstrated above. I don't care about football but I'm seeing it all over the news, so notability shouldn't be in question. Davey2116 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi sports fans and welcome to the ITN Blather Semifinals. We've scored 3,800 words on this topic and there's more to come – stay tuned! – Sca (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Chipping in because everyone else seems to be. I support college football as much as the next guy, but let's be honest, most people don't know about the sport. Yes, really. It's played professionally in a grand total of three countries, and this isn't a professional competition. It's not ITN/R, even if other college competitions are, and recent professional international association football/soccer/football-as-most-of-the-world-knows-it competitions weren't posted to ITN because they weren't the top competition (i.e. not the World Cup). This isn't the Super Bowl; to post it (with this comparison) would be blatant US-centrism. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter how many countries play gridiron football, doesn't matter that it's not professional, doesn't matter that it's not ITN/R, doesn't matter that it isn't the Super Bowl. Comparison to lesser association football competitions is unjust because soccer is overrepresented on ITN/R and gridiron football gets two a year. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now 4,500 and still in play! Sca (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sca, and Objection! your honor. Did you say "lesser"? Not sure how international, professional competitions are "lesser" than four colleges having a random selection playoff. And did you say "overrepresented"? Tell how being not posted because it's not the top comp or ITN/R equals "overrepresented on ITN/R"? Both are the exact opposite of your claims. It's really very simple: I like it. You like it. Unfortunately, it's of zero consequence to an overwhelming majority. Gridiron football gets more than two competitions a year, many more if you count college games. Of course, the World Cup is once every four years and still apparently the only viable soccer competition to be posted on ITN. How is this anything but an easy oppose? It has less provenance, less newsworthyness, less coverage, and less international appeal than major soccer competitions that didn't get posted. If you think, despite all that, that it's still worthy, then you are believing that US colleges are inherently more significant in the world than top-tier international elite athletes. Which is utterly false. Kingsif (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Rukavina

 * Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Refs look good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Gabonese coup attempt

 * Support probably important, although I admit I don't know where the hell Gabon even is Openlydialectic (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait This is still developing. According to BBC, the government says they have things under control, in which case the article should be renamed as "coup attempt". We'll see as the story develops. --Tone 10:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated the nomination, as the coup has failed and plotters arrested. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral much of the article fusses over internet disruption without explaining its relevance in the narrative. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – They went on TV to announce their coup. Let's see if this develops into anything substantive. Sca (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - it's not ready to post yet, as it's a stub and doens't really cover the event in detail. But if the article is expanded then certainly. This was international news, and if it happened in a more "famous" country there is not a shadow of a doubt it would be posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Well the article is not ready for submission right now but, being about coup attempt, it is guaranteed to expand so on the basis of article's quality I may soon be supporting it and as far as notability is concerned, it is receiving enough coverage (although not as much as coup attempts usually get, as in case of Turkey in 2016).Amir (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability - I can't comment on how far the article is from covering the story in detail, but I don't think notability is in question here. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – According to the BBC, the five leaders of the coup have been arrested. AP corroborates and reports two coup participants were killed. Looks like the coup has fizzled. Something not happening usually is not considered ITN material. Sca (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Though Turkey is a much larger country, the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt very much failed. Despite how it didn't succeed at any of its goals, and those involved were purged, it was unquestionably regarded as a notable event. The only way we can say that the attempt in Turkey was important but the attempt in Gabon was unimportant is if we invent new arbitrary standards like "the Turkish coup forces had access to more weapons than the Gabon forces" or "the one in Gabon shut down the internet, but the one in Turkey shut down newspapers and TV stations" etc, which would really boil down to one happening in a major country and another in a very small country. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨


 * There's a vast difference between a coup attempted that involved thousands of people (like Turkey) and one that involved exactly 5 (this one). This seemed far less like a serious threat than anything else. --M asem (t) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on notability - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It appears that five guys got on TV, announced they were taking over, and were arrested afterwards. AFAIK there was no large scale violence and the capital Libreville is described as calm by sources. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose assuming nothing more happens. Article isn't good enough and the events (just 5 participants?) weren't significant enough. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Five soldiers led by a lieutenant does not constitute a credible coup. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>talk 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support requiring large scale violence to post this kind of thing makes no sense. This will be heavily in the news (at least in the country) for a while, and that's good enough. Banedon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Banedon 's user page, "Banedon" does not exist. Sca (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I burst into a TV studio broadcasting live and announced I was taking over the US government, I would get hauled off to a mental hospital and get barely a mention in the news. This isn't that much different. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But you'd make the news. You'd trigger wide investigations into whether you were acting alone or if there's any credible threat. You'd make people wonder if the FBI should have detected what you were going to do before you actually did it. If the would-be coup were significant enough to attract coverage from major news sources, it should be suitable for ITN as well. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what? Sca (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to see here. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment wait, wut?! People were trying to overthrow someone the Atlantic Council wanted to give a Global Citizen Award?  And you want that on ITN/Wikipedia :D ?  Will read page before !voting, per power. SashiRolls t ·  c 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems to be more so a case of drunken insubordination or a few soldiers' gross overestimation of revolutionary potential than a consequential attempt at overthrowing the government. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shades of 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, writ small. Sca (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is in fact comparable to the Soviet coup attempt, I don't think that helps the case that it's unimportant considering that the Soviet coup attempt was one of the contributing factors in the country shattering. As for what the long-term consequences of the rare African coup attempt will be, we can't know, but it unquestionably destabilized the country and isn't off of the minds of the people who live there. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Regardless of its size and lack of success, this is clearly an important incident for Gabon and the rest of Central Africa. Coups are getting significantly rarer in Africa in general, and this is the first in Gabon since 1964 I believe. Is it really less notable than the World Darts Championship it would displace?—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd add that African news is seriously underrepresented on this page, something that Wikipedia has long intended to address. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as per User:Brigade Piron. This source talks of the context: lower petroleum output and prices, the aftermath of the 2016 "election", an ailing kleptocratic son-of-a-dictator president, unwavering support of the international community with France leading the troops... It was more than five soldiers, since two were killed and seven arrested, according to Reuters. Also, a witness saw around 300 people on the street in Libreville, supporting the coup attempt. That's as many daring citizens as France has soldiers in Gabon. Wakari07 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is still too short and I'm not convinced by the significance either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why it already has faded from major news sites. Sca (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say it's faded from major news sites when more articles have been written on major news sites since you announced that it's faded. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a second-day AP story in one newspaper – one I wouldn't call a major news site these days. One that is a major site, NYT, has a second-day story about Gabon officials "inspecting the state radio station where security officers thwarted a coup attempt by army soldiers on Monday." Not significant.
 * It's not on the AP's main site or the BBC's, nor on Reuters. ("This source" – Reuters story linked by Wakari07 above – is two days old.) Oddly, the Guardian still offers yesterday's video of the plotters' ill-fated TV appearance, but obviously that's old news. It's over. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the Washington Post & AP aren't major news sites anymore? That's the first time I've heard that one. Nevertheless, you mention NYT is a major site, so here's an NYT article about it from a couple of hours ago. Here's another article from today and another from 29 minutes ago and another from less than a day ago and another and another. Sure, you could say AllAfrica.com isn't a major news site in America but this isn't really an American story. Most of these stories are about the consequences of the coup, but that only demonstrates that it wasn't an inconsequential unimportant event. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per the convincing arguments above (some of the opposers have been acting extremely immaturely here btw). Heavily in the news and similar in impact to the failed Turkish coup attempt, which we posted. Davey2116 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - the supports have been saying "a coup is a coup" where the opposition has been showing the cooler heads. From what I've read these guys couldn't have overthrown a Chuck E Cheese's. ghost 02:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no consequences to overthrowing a Chuck E Cheese's. If a large European country's internet was shut down & military officers were arrested or executed, it would be posted in a heartbeat. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. Is there any evidence the coup plotters were responsible for the outage? ghost 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes; the existing evidence leads to 1 of 2 possibilities: 1) the coup plotters are responsible directly by shutting it down themselves 2) the coup plotters are responsible indirectly as it was shut down by civilians in response to the coup. Source: "The NetBlocks internet shutdown observatory has detected evidence of a major internet disruption in Gabon at 7:00AM UTC Monday 7 January 2018. Affected population centres include Libreville and Port-Gentil. The shutdown comes as military forces have reportedly gained power, with President Ali Bongo reportedly abroad seeking medical treatment. It is presently unclear whether civilian or military forces are responsible for the disruption." Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ghost's user page says ghost "does not exist". What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Incidentally, where's the "systemic bias" crowd? They're everywhere when we're trying to post the James Comey firing or the Kavanaugh confirmation or a freaking government shutdown (18 days and counting), saying we wouldn't post a corresponding event from a small African country. But now when there's a coup attempt in a small African country, there's no one saying we wouldn't not post a corresponding event from a Western country. What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Davey's user page is blank. What gives? Sca (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sca: that's not an argument, and I think you know that. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal user pages are optional. Not creating one doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on talk pages. If Davey2116 is a newcomer, you should know not to WP:BITE them over not doing something that's not even required & has nothing to do with the discussion. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what to think about this, but I am certain that the 2018-2019 Sudanese protests entry needs first work then posting to ITN. As I posted at the portal yesterday, it's tens of thousands of protestors... (If I had more time to work on it I would.) SashiRolls t ·  c 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Event is a current event, which is covered properly by legitimate news sources, and the article and its referencing is of sufficient quality. I'd probably like to see a bit longer article, but it's past the stub stage, hits all the major points, and it's well referenced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support I have been against this but the latest news suggests something a bit more violent and life-threatening (hostages taken, etc.) than the initial reports made it seem. Still seems like a very ineffective way to try to coup. --M asem  (t) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insufficient coverage to be ready for ITN at this point. A standalone article should have sections, not just a single text section and references +/- an infobox.  Spencer T• C 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Time to reassess? The article has been expanded and structured and I guess this is as good as it will get. --Tone 08:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – The article looks good, the news is currently in the news, and it is the perfect example of Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, pointing readers to a subject they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (per Purpose). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, posted. The consensus initially was against since the story was developing but now it has shifted to support. --Tone 09:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad V abdicates

 * Comment Abdication of a reigning monarch is a big deal, so this is an automatic support on notability. The article, however, needs a separate section on his abdication that will be highlighted in the blurb instead of his name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment you make it sound as if its a big deal, the term king is malaysia is not like european kings that the throne goes to thier children after decades holding the throne, here every 3-5 years the newly elected king leave his job and a new king from another state is elected. lots of sultans who keep selecting as kings and so on and so on. the deputy king will take the job until he also resign which by than his deputy will be crowned.  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The sudden unexplained abdication seems pretty unusual. Apparently nothing remotely like this has happened before. He also seems to have married a Russian woman about six weeks ago (and hasn't released any public statement confirming or denying or explaining that). It seems likely that the two events are related. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - as above. unusual abdication. BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR, so there's no need to support or oppose. This should go up once the article is ready. However, right now it is very bare bones; I'm amazed we have such a short and uninformative article for someone who was head of state of Malaysia for several years, and won the position through an election. The article currently has just one sentence on the abdication - that should be at least a fully-referenced paragraph. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If we post this, we ought to be describing him as "Sultan Muhammad V of Malaysia", which seems to be the most common descriptor, and would be consistent with the way we describe European nobility and royalty. I'm unsure why the article is not at that title, but it should either be moved or piped. Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows that the articles for the monarchs of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Spain (Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Margrethe II of Denmark, Harald V of Norway, Philippe of Belgium, Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Elizabeth II, and Felipe VI of Spain) do not include the titles. That is to say, none of the reigning kings and queens of Europe have the word "king" or "queen" in the titles of their Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He was the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong), not the Sultan of Malaysia. He's Muhammad, Sultan of Kelantan, the fifth of the name from the current dynasty. Wakari07 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the numbering is for his sultanate, which is not the same as king of Malaysia. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They may not have their titles in front of their names, but many still have their titles in the article title; see Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for instance. Besides which, when we have posted British royal weddings, we have definitely included the titles of the individuals involved in the blurbs: see, for instance. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Not ITNR ITNR seems to be for the election or succession of a new head of state, not the removal/resignation of the old. Typically this would be simultaneous, but not here. ghost 14:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is simultaneous. It's a first-ever event, and just yesterday, six of the nine ruling families agreed to elect a new king (on 24 January, taking office the 31st) – instead of letting the Acting King remain in office until the end of the term. Wakari07 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what "simultaneous" means. This guy is gone already. The new guy is elected more than two weeks from now. This is not quantum physics. Consider the pope: there is always an interregnum, but the death/abdication of the old one is not ITNR. ghost 16:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Readers don't care whether an item is included on bare significance or on ITN/R criteria. Don't you think the death of the Pope would be mentioned? Wakari07 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on significance. As per several users, the inclusion is warranted under the WP:ITN/R criteria, paragraph "Elections and heads of state". Wakari07 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we missing an update on the article? Based on the Guardian, there is definitely at least a paragraph of information we should have that there was speculation that he was going to step down, and definitely the body is missing the statement that he stepped down. --M asem (t) 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even on the Malay Wikipedia article, there's barely one sentence, approximately translated as "On 6 January 2019, he had resigned the federal throne as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and became the first Yang di-Pertuan Agong to step down from the federal throne in the history of Malaysia". I suppose the Malaysian people have other things to do than to speculate about the past or the future. The royal palace gave no reason for the move. This article suggests that the real reason may be in pressure from the Council of Rulers, with the rumours about the marriage only the tipping point. The same source says that a New Straits Times editorial insists that he "stepped down" and didn't abdicate. Wakari07 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as we state that the speculation is speculation, and the speculation is coming from expert sources, and doesn't dip into BLP, then I think there should be some inclusion of ideas why. But still, lack of anything in the body (when I last looked) means this is not properly updated. --M asem (t) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – That such an abdication is "unprecedented," per our article on Muhammad V, doesn't seem broadly significant. Note that the article contains no separate section on his abdication, merely saying in the lead that he abdicated on Jan. 6. There's apparently no separate article on the abdication either. Not even remotely enough information for ITN. Sca (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A few sentences in article space may be ready by 31 January, when his successor is sworn in and takes office. Wakari07 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait Removing the improper ITNR tag. The election of the successor is ITNR, so let's wait and post that.  ghost 01:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per ghost. In the (likely not too distant) future we can post something along the lines of: (name) is crowned the 16th King of Malaysia following the abdication of Muhammad V of Kelantan. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dragoslav Šekularac

 * Oppose for now: There are a lot of missing references including the entire "club career" and "honors" sections - Dumelow (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article could certainly use some cleanup, but it's mostly satisfactory. It needs a few more citations (especially on the unreferenced sections) and possibly a few MoS tweaks and it should be ready. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Dozier

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the last paragraph before "death" is out of date ("The next court hearing regarding the case is scheduled for September 10, 2018", "A response to this motion request is due August 16, 2018."). Probably needs fixing (or removing) before posting. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Black Kite, I've now updated that section. Seems the court case with the drug company is still ongoing - Dumelow (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Tomos on Ukrainian autocephaly

 * Support pending improvements to the blurb. It should reflect the controversy surrounding the move, the fact that neither of the existing churches accepted the move on Constantinopole's part, and that the Russian church and it's child church in the Ukraine (the largest religious denomination in the country) explicitly denounced the move Openlydialectic (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Openlydialectic, and noting the last few ITN noms about the progress in this all deferred to this date. Kingsif (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb This is finally it. I think the alt blurb better reflects the big picture. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – No expert on Orthodox Christianity here, but I'd be nervous about "precipitating a major schism." Isn't it about freeing the Ukrainian church from Russian Orthodox hegemony? Historically, "schism" seems to refer more to doctrinal differences, which don't seem to be at play here. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Schism in the Christian sense generally refers to a breaking of sacramental communion, or among non-sacramental Protestants, withdrawal from fellowship. At the moment approximately half of the worlds 300 million Orthodox Christians are no longer in communion with the See of Constantinople. And not one of the world's canonical autocephalous churches (with the obvious exception of the EP) have recognized this act. Most have criticized it and all continue to recognize the self governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the canonical church in Ukraine. Yes, this is a schism. And if it is not settled quickly it could become the worst since 1054 which split the Christian world between East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). I realize that for those who do not follow religious news, this sort of thing with debates over ancient church canons, ecclesiology and so on is likely to put one into a coma of boredom. But it really is a massively significant event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On top of that, from what I understand, many outside of Russia criticized the Constantinopole's decision because A) it is pretty obviously political and has little to do with religious rules B) creates a bad precedent of direct meddling into affairs of an autocephalous church by the ecumential patriarch, Pope-style. The latter is especially important since no one can guarantee the Ecum. Patriarch won't then move to give independence to churches of Macedonia/Montenegro/Abkhazia/South Osetia/Donest's People's Republic/Kosovo/Bosnia/Moldova/Belarus/etc. Tl;dr this is huge Openlydialectic (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (9:20) Alexander Bratersky (Gazeta.ru) sees Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece as the main risks for Moscow Patriarch Kirill, and by extension, the Russian state. (19:30) Valentin Yakushik (University of Kyiv) raises the business issue of how the church properties will be handled. Wakari07 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I claim no expertise, but if people are unsure whether 'schism' is tecnically correct, other words like 'rift' or 'split' might do instead. That said, I suspect the question of whether the EP is entitled to do what he has done is probably already a doctrinal difference (and will presumably soon become one if it isn't already), so I suspect it's probably misleading to argue that it's not a schism due to the supposed absence of doctrinal differences. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article's called "Schism" so we should probably follow the suit to avoid WP:EASTEREGG Openlydialectic (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, I now think 'schism' is probably best.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Support on notability for reasons already given by others above and in earlier noms (important religious story with geo-political implications, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Schism, rift or whatever, note that according to today's AP article, the issue is "a decree of independence ... of the nascent Orthodox Church of Ukraine, formally severing it from the Russian Orthodox Church." It adds, "Many Ukrainians had resented the status of the Moscow-affiliated church." Sca (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Given that context, suggest the blurb avoid the obscure (to most Eng.-lang. readers) term autocephaly – a Greek word (αὐτοκεφαλία) which according to our own article simply means "independence." Yes I know about links, but why not make the blurb readily intelligible to our audience? – Sca (talk) Sca (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: To an outsider, this issue seems more about politics and nationalism than about religion. Sca (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Sca (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know we tend to simplify for accessiblity, but on the other hand, as an encyclopedia, we can teach readers words specifically used in a given area. Brandmeistertalk  14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If they're that interested, they can get those words from the article. Anyway, autocephaly is certainly not a word most Eng.-lang. readers are ever going to use themselves. Sca (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I added another altblurb with more accurate links, please check. I think more or less good to go, all articles appear comprehensive and sourced. --Tone 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Was about to add myself. Brandmeistertalk  14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, both altblurbs should say "The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople , Bartholomew I , grants...." In English, nouns usually take articles. (But still oppose.) Sca (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Commas still needed. Sca (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support--UkrainianCossack (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a major event for the Eastern Orthodox Church, with significant international implications.Nsk92 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 21:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – It'll be Greek to most of our readers. (Ha!) Sca (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Church Slavonic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment - Can someone rewrite the blur (yes I left out the second "b") to lose the seven-dollar words? There's gotta be a more direct way to state what's going on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.23.67 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Poroshenko fracks it and runs blaming Putin. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? – Sca (talk)

(Posted) RD: Leo J. Dulacki

 * Support well referenced, great quality article, has been updated, its good to go --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Burningham

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harold Brown

 * Oppose. Article has citations needed tag. Article has several unreferenced sections. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose on verifiability  Needs citations throughout the article, especially in the section for his career as the Secretary of Defense. It (hopefully) shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources to support the article considering their significant role in several presidential cabinets. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, It turns out that the whole section on his term as Secretary of Defense was a verbatim copy from his biography at defense.gov. It's public domain (hence not a copyvio) but certainly not ideal. I was able to cite some of it from the obits, but the obits are too high-level to cover some of the more specific paragraphs. Should this be posted? Davey2116 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the work you've done in finding reputable sources for the article. I'm flipping my !vote to Support. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: John Thornett

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to gaps in referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article needs more sources. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019

 * Strong oppose yet again. First, this is a partial rather than a full shutdown, so it doesn't have the impact of the 2013 one (only ~800k vs 2+M workers affected). Second, whereas there are partisan politics involved with both, this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide, which is something we should not be encouraging as ITN items, least we start getting into petty squables between parties from other countries. --M asem (t) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide is relevant to the effects of the shutdown. (And I also disagree that the 2013 shutdown was caused by a "reasonable" partisan divide.) If another country's "petty squabbles" will affect as many federal workers, I'd be happy to post that as well. Davey2116 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Why in God's name are we repeatedly nominating this? Not now, not ever. WaltCip (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When I nominated this last week, there was a narrow majority in favor, with more support promised if the shutdown continued past January 3. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I again state that I am not sure what regular updates are expected. Maybe "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the fifth time the House will not fund a wall."  "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the tenth time the House will not fund a wall" but that's all. As already noted, most of the government is open. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously you haven't been checking the page history. It's not as simple as you're making it to be. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure that people are making daily updates to the page, that's likely to happen, but we're looking at the significant updates that happen to the story itself. From the last several days, this is just a blame game being played by both sides, which is not major shifts or news. The media is sensationalizing this as well which compounds the issue. --M asem (t) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of the content in the "effects" section is about a "blame game". It is about tangible effects of the government shutting down, which are what they are, whether or not the media is sensationalizing it. Davey2116 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which would be expected to occur and all that does is expand the summary of the effects, it doesn't radically change the story. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment this should have been a blurb when it started, but it's easy to blurb when it's over. In the news around the world, nearly a million people either furloughed or working without pay ... certainly seems significant to me, just not right for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb nom below was closed in just 90 minutes, it's way past time for that bullshit to stop. Noms exist for seven days, there is no reason at all, none whatsoever, for someone to just go off the rails and close it. In fact... --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support  - In the news, notable, and of interest worldwide. Jusdafax (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable effect impacting the lifes of millions of Americans. Has been going on for several weeks. It is worth noting and individual readers can make up their own mind as to whether to visit the page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) this is a routine US political disagreement (2) The "shutdown" isn't really a true government "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal. Chrisclear (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this isn't really "routine". This is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996. Davey2116 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment In addition to the January 3 blurb nomination, the December 27 ongoing item nomination remains open. Chrisclear (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not of interest worldwide in any sense, just more bonkers insanity from the orange one. These shutdowns are commonplace, and unless the Trump unleashes some super-power, this is not of note on an ongoing basis either.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's in the news and not trivial.  Calidum   10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 *  'Comment Wait – It's a topic that creeps in a petty pace from day to day. Suggest we wait until it ends, which it will sometime, then consider for a blurb. Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, would consider supporting a blurb when it ends if it drags on for an unusual time. "And today, again nothing happened" isn't useful to readers; we don't have other political stalemates like the Brexit negotiations in Ongoing, and for the same reason. &#8209; Iridescent 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose these U.S.-only shutdowns. Just because one country decides to be dramatic doesn't mean we should be posting it. I want to know if all of these support !voters would support a blurb when  (and if) Trump builds the wall.  w umbolo   ^^^  23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per rationale below.  Spencer T• C 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support given recent press conference and corresponding increase in press coverage.  Spencer T• C 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support one would be hard-pressed to find a country in which this wasn't in the news. Banedon (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it's bounced back up to front page headlines everywhere following Trump's TV spot. Examples - Guardian, CNN, Global News, Al Jazeera, New York Times <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing to support - Trump using the Oval Office to give a televised speech to the American people in a setting usually reserved for national crises has escalated this story to higher than it was previously.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Ritchie333. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because it got a news bump from the nation-wide speech last night, how does this still qualify as ongoing? Most activity still is watching Congress do nothing about it with glacial shifts in positioning? (I know the news "updates" this story every day, but again, we're not talking the type of breaking news as we'd have for Olympics or other ongoing events). --M asem (t) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump isn't the President of the UK, nor is he the President of Qatar, but those are just two non-US sources that made it their headline story for today. I don't see any sign of this news letting up; indeed, if nothing else happens it's going to get worse. If Trump was on Wikipedia, he'd be indeffed per WP:ICANTHEARYOU by now. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of things Trump or enough Congress does gets reported in overseas publications often as headline news, that's the result of 24/7 news cycles. I'm talking significant updates that are more than "Nothing changed today despite negotiations continuing." Ongoing is used as a means to avoid using blurb-space for a a story that would otherwise receive multiple ITN blurbs, and in terms of the shutdown, very few events have been of ITN blurb significance. --M asem (t) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The continuation of the shutdown itself is the story. Multiple agencies of the federal government and their employees are impacted. Even if negotiations stall, each day the shutdown continues represents a continued, sustained impact on the U.S. economy and its citizens. It's not a standard practice in a developed country for a sitting President to weaponize a shutdown of government and threaten to continue it for "months or years", and it's certainly not usual to give a prime-time speech from the Oval Office to bolster that position. It is in the news and it's ongoing. The confluence of events can't be summarized in a blurb, so posting as ongoing is the only alternative to accurately encapsulate all of the above facts.--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support this is clearly of note and in the news around the world, and I believe it will only continue to become more notable the longer it goes. Considering the Yellow vests movement was made an ongoing item last month, there's no place for arguments that this only affects a single country. -- Plasma Twa  2  23:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As this entry is about to drop off ITN/C, marked as needing admin attention to determine a consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , : if any of y'all have a second could you take a look at this nom? Best,  Spencer T• C 21:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is big worldwide news; tomorrow this will become the longest-ever government shutdown in U.S. history. Claims that this is "routine" are simply incorrect; these are quite rare. (And I have to say &mdash; way more significant than a snooker or darts championship...). Neutralitytalk 18:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support due to how long this has now been going on, and the fact that it is still dominating news coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly not routine. If it was just 2-3 days maybe but it's 20 days in and there doesn't seem to be a sign of it being resolved immediately soon. Juxlos (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a notable ongoing situation that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. This has been going on for unusually long time. --Tone 08:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herb Kelleher

 * Comment I've done a lot of work this morning to correct, expand, and add/fix a lot of citations. Could still do a lot more work, and surprised that good ol' Herb had such a scant article to begin with for such a storied life. But I think it should now be up to scratch for RD. Kenmelken (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support; all well sourced, neutral, and otherwise problem-free, and to someone like me who's never heard of him before, the article looks rather comprehensive. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced article. Well done Kenmelken. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article in great shape, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. Nice work. --Tone 09:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 116th United States Congress and Partial government shutdown

 * Strong oppose How many times is this going to be nominated? Ignoring the shutdown, we'ed never ITN the onset of a country's legislative branch (only the result of elections), and the shutdown still is happening because of petty political squabbles that are not appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 00:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this sees plenty of new coverage and even if it's a petty political squabble, it's still a political squabble in the world's most powerful country. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we posted the election, we don't need to post this. United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 might be an ONGOING candidate, but I expect that's already been rejected as a suggestion. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it’s a manufactured drama, not significant news. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose These happen frequently in the US. I think there was one when I was there in 2013. I wouldn't go so far as and oppose if it were, say, in China, where such a thing would be truly unusual and remarkable, but in the US it is indeed just another routine petty political squabble.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it "routine". In fact, this is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996. Davey2116 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose per, and the fact that this is not even an full shutdown, like that of last year. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) Start of congress is a routine political event and not ITN-worthy (2) this is a routine US political disagreement (3) The "shutdown" isn't really a true "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal Chrisclear (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news around the world, has been going on for two weeks with nearly a million people furloughed or working without pay. Certainly seems significant to me. Noms are open for seven days, not ninety minutes, so unless the discussion has become disruptive, there is absolutely no reason, no whatsoever, no justifiable reason to kill a nom after just 90 minutes and a few opposes. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb or ongoing as nominated above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting at current time; perhaps in the future if it has more acute impact.  Spencer T• C 05:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose how many times do we need to nominate and oppose this? Once Trump unleashes some uber-directive, we can start thinking about it again.  Until then, this is utterly humdrum and of parochial interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gao Chengyong

 * Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - short, but well cited and serviceable. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose At 505 words it is just above being a stub, but the article jumps in at 1988 for a subject born in 1964. A line or two bridging the gap would be useful. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not all serial killers are notable. The page needs to be expanded a bit to clearly show this subject is notable. I suspect that the actual notable subject is the Arrest, trial and execution of Gao Chengyong similar to Arrest and trial of Chen Ziming and Wang Juntao. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Hrodvarsson, the article is barely beyond a stub, while what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited. Yes, it's short, but I wonder if the gap in his younger years is a result of it being underrepresented in the English-speaking media. Perhaps an editor who knows Chinese can help. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Chang'e 4

 * Super strong mega support a huge chapter in the future of space exploration Openlydialectic (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Only one cite needed Sherenk1 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - For the same reasons stated by the nominator Fiveop (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment No need for capital F : far side of the Moon. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll comment out the part that needs a citation, it is not crucial for the article regarding the landing. --Tone 08:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - Clearly an historic achievement and a good trend if we get these type of stories on the front page quicker. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chinese Space Agency also released the first image the spacecraft took from the surface of the moon. I am not familiar with rules of uploading images to wikipedia, so I can't help with this, but my guess is it probably wasn't copyrighted. And if so we can include it both in the article and maybe add to the main page too. If it was indeed copyrighted, if someone could just add it to the article under the fair use it would be great too. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we make it more clear that CNSA is Chinese? This is a historic accomplishment for China and I get the feeling that many aren't familiar with the acronym and might assume NASA launched this if they don't look it up. Or is that necessary? By the way, strong post-posting support. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree! – Sca (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just expand the initialism, no more complaints. It's not the longest blurb in the world so could easily withstand the full name of the organisation being present.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be done, but since the CSNA is an agency of the Chinese government, it would be simpler and more understandable to just say "China's." (Unlike NASA, which has been a recognized and widely understood acronym for half a century, CNSA is neither – it's quite new to English-speaking readers.) Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, just use the fact, it's much easier to expand and link CNSA to its common name. NASA is the common name for NASA, and China National Space Administration is the common name for CNSA.  We wouldn't say "Europe launches..." for the European Space Agency.  Let's stick to the facts for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * – Europe is not a country.
 * – If we were talking about an American project, we'd say "The U.S. space probe," not the "NASA space probe." Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * North America is not a country either. And we do (and have) said "NASA space probe", it's on the main page, right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * NASA stands for National Aeronautic and Space Administration. North America isn’t in play. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But the point still remains, we have "NASA space probe" on the main page right now, so major aspects of this complaint thread is based on a false assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm okay with "The China National Space Administration," as it does contain "China." I'm also okay with "NASA's New Horizons" for reasons previously stated (and criticized by some as POV, though they had nothing to do with U.S. nationalism). I apologize again for using impolite cheeky language yesterday. Peace to all. Sca (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal. Not an immediately obvious acronym Openlydialectic (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Could we please get a usable picture? China, if you are listening, could you release some public domain images. This is your chance to shine! Jehochman Talk 02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, have you heard from President Xi yet? Sca (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. The dramatic photo of the far side rover making its first few feet of exploration would work for me. Is it in the public domain? I would think so. Jusdafax (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...or perhaps not. I’d love to see the rover in action, but I’m not seeing it in the public domain. How about the far side landing site for starters? All I can find in Commons so far, but beats the hair-challenged darts champ. Jusdafax (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A nice try, but the photo at right isn't workable – it'll look like just a gray rectangle. It would indeed be great if we could get one like this. ? – Sca (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Geoffrey Langlands

 * Comment: Referencing needs improvement; however, removing all of that material - while the quick band-aid solution - would not merit automatic ITN posting IMO; the article needs some kind of prose description of his career.  Spencer T• C 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Great Belt Bridge rail accident

 * Support The article looks good and well referenced though I can't read most which are in Danish. However, the last paragraph can do with a rewrite. It will soon be 10 UTC before this is posted, that's why reference like that should be avoided. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I commented out the 10 am sentence. The article is in a good shape, ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 09:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support very much in the news, and still very much being improved, which allay my concerns about length --DannyS712 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not front page news on CNN or BBC, which is typically Europe-oriented. Even in the Europe section of BBC, it's not the leading story. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – In part due to the rarity of accidents on the Storebaelt bridge, the longest outside Asia . As a second-day story it's still in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, it's not remotely close to "the longest outside Asia"; that would be the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway if you include viaducts, or the Kerch Strait Bridge if you don't. Even the 80-year-old Thousand Islands Bridge is longer. &#8209; Iridescent 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the main span which is the longest outside Asia, and third longest in the World. See List of longest suspension bridge spans. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the bridge we're talking about, not the whole causeway (or whatever you choose to call it). Our Great Belt Fixed Link article says the bridge itself is "the world's third-longest main span (1.6 km) and the longest outside of Asia." (And how is this a 'point of order'?) – Sca (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The main span of a bridge is the longest span between support points like pillars or towers. The length of a bridge is from start to end of the whole bridge and unrelated to spans. The Great Belt Bridge is far down List of longest bridges. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. See strike-through above. (BTW, I wasn't proposing that we put that in the blurb.) Sca (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support a most unusual incident and the article is good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fuzheado. Certainly not of international significance like the world darts championship.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which you didn't even have time to oppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Denmark's deadliest rail accident for 30 years. Article up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well it makes the BBC headline news on news, and very significant in terms of its location. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this means. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a rough consensus to post. --Tone 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Unusual rail accident causing fatalities in a country with a very advanced rail transport system. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: 8 passengers in the blurb should be spelled out as "eight passengers", per MOS:NUMERAL. <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there's a consistency being applied across blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it's odd-looking because your "error" was fixed. Ho hum.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Daryl Dragon

 * Weak oppose. Main problem appears to be career section which is largely sourced from the Captain and Tennille webpage. Once that is fixed, I would be happy to support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not deserve to be in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bob Einstein

 * Oppose 16 hours without a comment? But far from sufficiently sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly unsourced, and some of the existing sources are imdb. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMDb is not a valid source. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 06:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gene Okerlund

 * Oppose The article is severely lacking in sources - entire sections without a citation - and suffers badly from WP:PROSELINE issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to sourcing issues. In a change from what is normally the case, the awards section is better referenced than the rest of the article.Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the sourcing issues.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: María Teresa Uribe

 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. A bit short but sufficient. --Tone 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 PDC World Darts Championship

 * Support This is a significant sporting event and the article is well updated with sufficient prose.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Pawnkingthree. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now that's what a sporting event article should look like. Note: not ITN/R, but we have posted this event in the past. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we give the Ultima Thule photo another half day because it was just posted 9 hours ago, and then change to this champion's pic? Jehochman Talk 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems perfectly reasonable. I actually forgot to update the photo when I posted this and was just working on it when you modified the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting non-comment – So dismayed am I by the nugatoriousness of this item that I am speechless. Sca (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no good German darts players. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But oddly enough, it made German Wiki's ITN too: "In London hat der Niederländer Michael van Gerwen (Bild) die 26. PDC Darts-WM gewonnen."
 * All I can say is, Die spinnen, die Deutschen. – Sca (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hopp is fairly tasty although he doesn't generally get the Sky hype treatment. &#8209; Iridescent 20:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, he's above average, but then aren't we all? What we all aren't is van Gerwen.  A legend in his own lifetime.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose: Incredibly niche event. Very surprised to see some of the names supporting above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ed, while darts never caught on in America, I can promise you that this is a big deal in the darts core markets (England, the Netherlands and Scotland, and expanding into China); with the exception of football, PDC is the most viewed sport on Sky Sports. &#8209; Iridescent 07:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Post posting support per my comment above to Ed and per this being a rare example of an article on a recent sporting event that isn't terrible. I'd support invoking IAR and leaving the photo off altogether in favour of the Ultima Thule image; everyone who's looked at the back page of a newspaper in the last decade already knows what van Gerwen looks like, while the New Horizons photos are genuinely unique. &#8209; Iridescent 08:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, time to get Baldy out of the box. Sca (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A different astronomical item now appears at the top, which made the Ultima Thule photograph's use somewhat jarring. I've switched to the photo of Michael van Gerwen, whose name and face are new to me.  (Of course, I don't even follow American sports.)  —David Levy 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're pro-astronomy biased, but that's fine ;) Lots of good space news recently. When time comes to update the image, a suitable one can be that of the landing site, Von Kármán (lunar crater). --Tone 09:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Public domain in the US

 * Comment ironically, the article is missing a lot of refs. This story is interesting, but with the clock ticking on Mr. Mouse we'll see if another extension isn't passed in a few years. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that this is not important, but the subset of the population that deem it important (which should include WPians) is not that great. It's a type of DYK thing but I do believe also someone is talking about a Signpost article since this is that important to be aware of. Arguably would only become of greater interest to the world in about 5 years, when "Steamboat Willie" is finally due to fall into PD by the same mechanism. --M asem (t) 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as ITN is not a forum, we should take care not to minimize the impact of wikipedians IRL. IP in the US is IP worldwide, and the tides have begun to change. Let me posit it this way: if we are now moving from corporate-driven IP to something more logical, what is the "right time to post?" ghost 19:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where on earth are you getting "IP in the US is IP worldwide" from? It's perfectly possible for something to be PD in the US and still under copyright elsewhere; this is why so many of our own files are hosted in Wikipedia (which follows US copyright) and not on Commons (which doesn't). &#8209; Iridescent 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose no international impact. Banedon (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the only thing blocking this is South USA losing its bloody war of independence from North USA so there's one country on this Europe-sized piece of land instead of two? If Britain and/or France wanted to stop North USA's blockade of most of the world's cotton they could've helped South USA beat North USA in war and any story involving a harmonized law between the 2 countries would suddenly be international (USA and CSA). Also some South USians wanted to annex till South America to grow slavery (not if North USA was fighting a war of attrition with them obviously), if they invaded at least Cuba then stories involving a copyright length harmonization between them would be even more international! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed the rationale in words, but not in essence. Are you OK with it now? Banedon (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You changed the words, but the meaning is the same, and it's still wrong. Stories don't have to have "international impact" to be worthy of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 100+ results from searching the archives for "internal politics" might have something to say about that, then. EDIT: Not to mention the 159 results for "international impact". Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose So, 1923 works in the U.S. are automatically PD now because of a law passed in 1998? Low significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Provisional support because of its impact on us/Wikipedia and therefore the sort of thing we ought to be promoting, although the article needs improvement. It's also at least as significant as a darts championship. News coverage:              (UK)  (Australia)  (Canada) and lots more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose. Notability or not is irrelevant; the article is atrocious and has entire unreferenced let alone paragraphs. &#8209; Iridescent 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) New Horizons encounters Ultima Thule

 * Support Ultima Thule article in good shape. (New Horizons is largely unreferenced.)  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I was waiting for this. I added a possible alternate wording. Ahiijny (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, a major event in space exploration. How about "...an exploratory flyby" used as a descriptor in the blurb (otherwise it's worded as if it just happened to fly by). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted
 * I posted blurb2. It should be updated after the 10am Eastern press conference. Hopefully we can add the word “successful” and maybe we will get a picture. It takes three hours for the probe to clear the rock, point toward earth, and then send a signal. It’s six light hours away. Jehochman Talk 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, guys. We should go with the alternate blurb, because I'm not good at writing those things. I was just so excited for this that I wanted to suggest it on this page as soon as I possibly could. Dogman15  ( talk ) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked. It can be marked by anyone. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m updating the blurb. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Can somebody update the image to use: File:Ultima thule color.png? I’m offline for a while. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a better quality / crop version of it: File:First color image of Ultima Thule (composite crop).png. I would've updated File:Ultima thule color.png, but the French Wikipedia has placed a lock on the Commons file, which is incredibly annoying. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's handled. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We now have two files locked by administrators that are in incorrect categories on Commons. File:Ultima thule color.png and File:Ultima thule color.jpg need to be added to the Composites of 2014 MU69 by LORRI and MVIC and Photographs taken on 2019-01-01 categories, and removed from the New Horizons and the Photos of 2014 MU69 by New Horizons categories. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Commons sysop, so I can't do a damn thing to help. Can you do a ?   Jehochman Talk 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You implied that you were by saying "It's handled", so I apologise for assuming. Edit fully-protected doesn't exist on Commons, so I don't how how to go about it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ask User:David Levy for help. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the categorizations. Feel free to request such changes whenever they're needed.  —David Levy 23:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)