Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2020

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) RD: Anne Cox Chambers

 * Needs a prose update on her death &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. MurielMary (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good now Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mary Higgins Clark

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a considerable amount of the references are referring to her own work Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reviewed as per note below Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note, that appears to be her autobiography, which is perfectly acceptable once the basis of notability was established by independent, third-party secondary sourcing (which is clearly there). As long as it is only supporting basic biographical details or her own specific thoughts, and not contestable statements. --M asem (t) 14:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, in the news and mentioned quite a bit. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was willing to overlook the one remaining CN, but it's also an NPOV concern if unsourced: critics have complained that the books are of lesser quality—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janez Stanovnik

 * Support Prominent politician, article seems to be well referenced (in Slovenian I presume so I'll let someone else read those) 46.7.236.180 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) oops not logged on Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Homero Gómez González

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article since nominating it. TJMSmith (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - No longer a stub since TJMSmith's great improvements, contains details about death which has been reliably sourced. Achaea (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Léon Mokuna

 * Support The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Just noting that our article says he was 91 when he died, but the BBC says he was 90 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good, @MSGJ I would go with our articles date as it is the same as the players page on Le ballon rond Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019–20 Lebanese protests

 * Remove Per nom. No continuing information about the protests being added to the article; if the notable piece is the formation of a new government, a new ITN item should be posted as such with the correct article as the subject.  Spencer T• C 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The last milestone was the passing of the 2020 budget on 27 January while protesters tried to prevent the parliamentary session. Twelve people (including 4 seriously) were injured in the protests outside the government building. Wait a couple of days. The Grammy awards were on 26 January. Until the Grammys roles off this is still current. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Grammy awards just rolled off with Brexit going up.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for Removal Yes, its still going, yes it has reasonable updates, but this is a type of "white noise" protest - its going to go on indefinitely, and it is not necessarily terribly violent as compared to the Hong-Kong ones. We have a LOT of ongoing right now, and of the present ones, this is least headline-y so in considering prioritization and keeping the ITN box reasonably sized, this could go. --M asem  (t) 14:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove The nature of protest has evolved in the past few years, such that large scale protests are becoming common place. We have two on ongoing now, and have had several others in the recent past. We need to start rethinking how we handle protests in the way we have US-school shootings and LGBT rights decisions - understanding that the world is different now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. We are going to have to consider having a fixed maximum number of ongoing items, as we do for RDs. This seems to be the least current of the set. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal - according to, the demonstrations are losing steam. Banedon (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready consensus seems clear on this one, time to pop it off --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New IBM CEO Appointed

 * Oppose Changes in CEOs to my knowledge are almost never placed on the ITN section. For example the replacements of McDonalds CEO Steve Easterbrook, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and Alphabet, Inc. CEO Larry Page were not placed there, and all three companies are larger than IBM nowadays. This is because they happen way too frequently to be of note. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant enough for ITN.  Nixinova   T   C  07:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Barring extraordinary circumstances, we don't post this type of business news. --M asem (t) 07:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial; barely worthy of a line's update in each respective article, so not worthy of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither figure was a founder of the company, company is not a sector leader, impact of the change seems to be purely bureaucratic. I'll add that the way this is being treated in business commentary is awful, and I'd like to not invite that sort of thing here.130.233.2.197 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment re-opened. If we can post the machinations of the eastern orthodox church we can give IBM a fair shake. The Rometty article isn't bad, the Krishna article is too short at present. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of impact and for consistency with other CEO nominations in recent years. We did not post changes of CEO in much bigger companies and I don't see any reason to make an exception for IBM. Also, Krishna's article is extremely short and uninformative. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

 * Support I still don't think this should have been removed in the first place. Only question is whether to add this as a blurb or put it directly into Ongoing. I'm weakly in support of a blurb since it's a milestone event, but that's it. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Still continuously updated.  Nixinova   T   C  05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Should never have been removed. For anyone with doubts, have a look at the Emergency notifications page for my state right now - http://emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/ HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see one emergency, in Cape Conran, a place the article doesn't mention. Still optimistically doubtful. For Victoria, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support complete no-brainer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose what? The only recent development in this mess of an article is one sentence about an emergency declaration in the ACT on Jan 31. Everything else is a week old. Did I miss something here? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Clearly still ongoing, and the ACT update is sufficient update on its own. Apparently more unfavourable weather conditions may lead to a bigger resurgence in the next few days. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP report says fires "threaten Canberra’s southern suburbs." – Sca (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But next day threat subsides. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Brexit

 * Oppose Old news. Just kidding! But there are better targets - Brexit withdrawal agreement, e.g. There's already been some discussion on the talk page. Also, I'd prefer we wait until 23:00 to post.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't know there was a discussion on the article to link (this is my first time nominating for ITN). If there is a clear preference for a different article, we can swap them out (if it works that way). I also wasn't expecting for this to be posted immediately, just to have enough consensus to post when it actually does happen. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only affects one nation Clearly this was going to be posted once official and this day is it. --M asem  (t) 00:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I Oppose because it only related to single country, not like Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, which has related to multiple countries, but I Support it for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not how this works, see, and anyway this does not only relate to one country as it affects the whole EU.  Nixinova  <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously major news. This should be posted at 11pm when it actually takes place. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-constructive sarcasm Only affects one nation (European Union) JK  Anyway, I support adding this at some point soon. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suppport per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Drop the word "formally" from the blurb. Should just read as "The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union." Proposing alt blurb that mentions transition period. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once it actually happens. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added Alt2. The withdrawal agreement is the best target, but I would Oppose at this moment, as it have a number of unreferenced sections, and a number of maintenance tags that needs to be cleared up first. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly, would "The United Kingdom leaves the European Union as the withdrawal agreement, including an 11-month transition period, comes into effect." be okay? Trying to indicate that the agreement is the active instrument in this withdrawal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pro forma Support per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I get the feeling that people will be wondering why we don't have it up if we don't have it up by the time it happens. I'd be more than happy to tackle any quality concerns opposers might have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Some comments got deleted, I assume accidentally, here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * support: Blurb not to be posted before 23:00 UTC. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-blurb II with the substituted as per proposed above. Any quality concerns should be dealt with as they're brought up, but posting this is a given Sleath56 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per others above, but use the original blurb (or alt3) as it was the UK's triggering of Article 50 that means that the UK is leaving, not the ratification of the withdrawal agreement (otherwise why is there an article about no deal Brexit?). Iffy★Chat -- 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in general. I've added a blurb ALT3, which just gives a concise summary of the basic story, without unnecessary guff about "formal withdrawals" etc so I'd favour that. Also oppose bolding of Brexit withdrawal agreement because it's not ready quality-wise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support any sensible wording, and any sensible target article, and we shouldn't get too hung up on the quality issues, though it is important to have the article be a reasonable standard. Agree this should not be posted before 23:00 GMT on Friday 31/01/2020, and it should possibly be delayed until a suitable time after that to allow for the updating of all the related articles on Brexit and those articles that say the UK is part of the European Union. Certainly the target article will need to be up-to-date otherwise we will look silly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either alt1 or alt3, posting at 23:00 tonight. There's no need to mention the withdrawal agreement, though I can see a case for the transition period. The Brexit article is huge and I'm not a fan of starting with a timeline, but it covers everything and has links to all the other relevant articles. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Brexit is an absolutely horrible article. I strongly oppose posting that trash on the Main Page. Use European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (on 23:00) finally - major event. Article isn't the best ever but it's not exactly the worst ever, with around 7 hours left to improve it. People will open the Brexit article with or without ITN anyway. Juxlos (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No-brainer on significance; I can see an argument for favouring the wirhdrawal agreement article over the main Brexit one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer "leaves" rather than "withdraws" as the more commonly used term. <span style="display:inline-block;padding:2px;transform:skewy(-16deg);color:#FFF;background:#FA0">49 <span style="display:inline-block;transform:skewy(16deg);color:#FA0">TL   14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support only after it happens, which at this point is in approximately six hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - can anyone think of a suitable picture? Would using File:UK location in the EU 2016.svg be OK? Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks ideal to me. It even works at ITN scale, which is unusual for a map. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this as an illustration? Anchors away! – Sca (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, maps aren't allowed to be used for ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no rule. ITN has generally avoided maps because they tend to be unreadable at 150px width. This one works fine at that scale. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added that one to CMP in readiness &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle and put it as simple as "UK leaves the EU". There is simply no need to mention any further details such as the withdrawal agreement or the transition period.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – After 3+ years of ballyhooed folderol it would be strange indeed if we ignored it. Alt1 seems reasonable (@ 23:00), although "leaves" might be better than "withdraws." – Sca (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Gibraltar is leaving too. Should be mentioned in the blurb - "the United Kingdom and Gibraltar..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Gibraltar is part of the UK, that would be redundant. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so, Gibraltar is in the EU, unlike, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, for example. Gib took part in the referendum, IoM and CI didn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Are you saying that nobody living on the islands was allowed to vote in the referendum!? You're also implying that Gibraltar was allowed to vote separately if they stay or go - the Gibraltar vote was almost 100% remain, but it was counted as part of a southern English region that was otherwise largely leave. It's part of the UK. Or are we saying "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and the rest of the British Isles and territories constituting the UK leave the EU"!? Sure, Gibraltar is probably the most relevant, given it entirely borders different EU countries, but that doesn't mean it's not constitutionally part of the UK, or it wouldn't be leaving. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Gibraltar isn't part of the UK, constitutionally or otherwise; it's a British Overseas Territory under UK rule. <span style="display:inline-block;padding:2px;transform:skewy(-16deg);color:#FFF;background:#FA0">49 <span style="display:inline-block;transform:skewy(16deg);color:#FA0">TL   21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While Gibratar is not part of the UK directly or in the conventional sense it is still under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the UK so it is not worth mentioning it in the blurb.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support obvious - I find the withdrawal bill and the concept to both be necessary target articles, and would prefer that blurb. And to post at 11 GMT, which I think is also uncontroversial. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we not just post it as an RD for "The UK's common sense" or something? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That died years ago, if we ever had it. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not unanimous support for any of the blurbs, but perhaps alt IV has broad consensus. Suggest posting at about 23:05 to give time for relevant articles to be updated. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one has expressed support for European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as the bold link (except presumably whoever added alt4). The options under discussion were Brexit and/or Brexit withdrawal agreement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see some opposition to both of these articles expressed above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt III. Of course. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt I and II per above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Prefer anything except alt IV. It would be perverse not to link Brexit at all, even if it's not the bolded link. —Cryptic 22:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Strong Oppose Alt 4. The withdrawal article shouldn't be bolded I don't think, and we must link Brexit. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as long as blub IV is not used (becuase we need to link Brexit) and is posted at or after 11pm GMT.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed IV from the list, in the hope that we can reach agreement on one of the other three &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II: It's useful and relevant to link the withdrawal agreement. — MarkH21talk 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment official as of just around two minutes ago. Juxlos (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted alt. Feel free to change. --Tone 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good choice, Tone. Let's leave it at that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that one will do fine &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tweaked slightly from "withdraws" to "leaves" as several editors expressed preference for this wording &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down dear, it's only the transition period There needs to be a more robust implication of guidelines currently out there. At the moment the article is full of maps showing the UK in the EU. I don't know if all of these are valid still. I still Support the blurb redirecting to Brexit, the withdrawal and the EU. By the way, my "Brexit Breakfast" will be Fajitas tomorrow. Something neutral.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:ACB1:1A1B:1127:FF65 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good blurb choice at this point if there is anything more to say it should be painted on a bus. Suggest closing this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Impeachment trial of Donald Trump

 * Oppose This likely means that the vote to acquit will happen next week, which is the right point to post and conclude the story. --M asem (t) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, but it is still pretty notable. If it goes in In the News twice, it isn't the end of Wikipedia. It just means that two events took place and they will link to the same article! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's in onging already, and the acquittal is imminent we can blurb his victory lap next week. Imagine celebrating a trial with no witness testimony...--LaserLegs (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait until next week. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   00:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

 * Support this had always been my threshold for ongoing. Suggest removing from OG, blurb this milestone and let it drop back into OG when it ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We've already run the coronavirus story. Ongoing is there to precisely to deal with the issue of new and more severe updates being made. We rarely run the same story again because a new development has occurred,even where individual steps seem quite momentous. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This is a significant development but the article has already been blurbed and is currently at ongoing. I think that's enough for now. If this turns into a pandemic or something obviously more serious than where we are now, I may reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suppport per LaserLegs. Add this blurb and once it drops, readd 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's been only 6 "declarations" by WHO since 2009. I think this is the stuff of ITNR autoposting level. 205.175.106.117 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs, and in deference to Ebola PHEIC ITN on 17 July 2019 PotentPotables (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support per LaserLegs and many other editors in reference to significance of world events. It is also be historic for health history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suppport per LaserLegs. International significance and worldwide news coverage. Jusdafax (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We did post The Last Time, and will probably post the WHO's Next PHEIC. I Can't Explain my exact thinking on this, but I just don't feel compelled to Substitute a blurb when we already have the ongoing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would think blurbs are of higher importance than ongoing, so substituing ongoing with a blurb should be a good idea. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 05:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - important milestone. Add back to ongoing when it rolls off. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 01:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I know we just had a blurb on this, but this is clearly a significant milestone and it's also front page news. Blurb this, return it to ongoing after it falls off. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support As others have said, it's a significant development, coronavirus continues to make international news, and a PHEIC is a rare event. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support provided it should obviously drop from Ongoing while the blurb is up. Sleath56 (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - major development in the top news topic worldwide. -Zanhe (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but suggest some numbers are added too, e.g. the spread across countries, and/or dead/infected. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please suggest blurb and I will update &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing to bear in mind is that the declaration is explicitly NOT because of the increase in cases in China, it's because of the risk of spread to low/middle income countries, so any addition needs not to link the two. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. WHO declaration is a necessary and critical requirement for many legal and business decisions (business travel, emergency funding, research grants, etc.). An exceptionally rare step for the WHO, and one that was up until very recently contentious for China. This clearly deserves a blurb, whether the current Ongoing entry is pulled or not (I just note that re-posting to Ongoing should have an accompanying nomination).130.233.2.197 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment in this case the consensus seems clear to return to ongoing once the blurb ages off I don't think we need another nom for that when the time comes. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But with death toll (today: 213) constantly rising, it's still the No. 1 international story. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think if the blurb stays here for too long, we should propose to go back to the statistics of infection/mortality rather than the WHO proclamation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We could always write the current blurb as "The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak kills at least 213, and is declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by WHO". ("WHO" can stay abbreivated here if space is at a premium)." --M asem (t) 14:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Of International Concern" would be expendable in the interest of space. Or we could say "an international public health emergency" (without the bureaucratic caps). – Sca (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I write above, the declaration is explicitly NOT because of the increase in cases in China, it's because of the risk of spread to low/middle income countries, so any addition of cases needs not to link the two. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

China toll hits 361 425. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Spitzer Space Telescope

 * Comment I'd support this -- it needs a lot of refs --LaserLegs (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Shutting down a technical device seems rather, er, anticlimactic. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that Spitzer is in the orbit around the Sun, there will be no spectacular reentry, such was the case of the Mir space station, for example. So, this is the end. Support when the references are addressed. --Tone 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though oppose on the referencing (which needs a lot of work). We also need to wait for confirmation that the off switch has been flicked and an update added to the article. This is the end of a highly productive mission. Adding altblurb and another source. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Large gaps in referencing. The history section is already tagged as such, and there are several other places where referencing is spotty as well.  Fix that and I will change my vote.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged article is not of high enough quality to appear on the main page. It has little referencing in the History section.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the international significance of such an event. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see where the significance to broad audience is too. Add that to the referencing problem, then I have to oppose this. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Oppose on referencing issues. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs refs, but would support if improved. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Andretti

 * Oppose Most of the article is unreferenced, including the parts about his death and personal life. — MarkH21talk 07:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 21:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Northwestern Syria offensive

 * Comment proposed Alt1, which eliminates disambig "(November 2019–present)" and adds a full stop. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged articles should not be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel like this blurb is trying to imply something ("strategic town") without stating it outright in a way that can be debated. If the argument is that this is the beginning of the end, I'd say we passed that point when the Turks moved in last year (which we posted).  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the article on the town. I quote, "As the Syrian Civil War followed, the town's strategic position on the road between Damascus and Aleppo made it a significant prize." Banedon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and Gettysburg was a significant prize in the summer of '63; not so much in '65. Given the current state of the war, this doesn't really change anything.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a long protracted conflict, I'd expect we'd only post the point that most sources would consider to be the "end" of the conflict (less the skimishes and cleanup that often follow). This doesn't seem be treated that way. --M asem (t) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another day in Idlib. – Sca (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Offensive is still ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 04:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would have supported this as an ongoing link, however, article quality is simply not good enough for the main page.  Clean it up, and I'll change my vote.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Farnes

 * Weak oppose - two unreferenced claims only, the rest is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As references were expanded earlier today, looks fairly good Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Suggest holding off a little, as the outgoing Pete Stark has only been up since 21:12. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have managed to improve referencing and expand the article it looks ready to go although there probably could be more added through The Daily Telegraph obituary but I unfourtnately do not have the time.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yang Xiaobo

 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sourced and recently expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harriet Frank Jr.

 * Weak Oppose Awards and filmography need cites. Otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref'd those sections. Only thing I can't corroborate is that Edgar Award, so it might be worth removing. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. The one CN is not enough to hold up posting given the otherwise solid article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lexii Alijai

 * Oppose - This death wasn't recent. It occurred nearly a month ago, where recent deaths are usually people who died within a few days prior. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Only adding to affirm the death was widely reported when her body was found UPI, so this definitely is stale for RD. --M asem (t) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicholas Parsons

 * Support An amazing entertainer who was still working until not long before his death at 96. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait and see if somebody can fix the fact tags without hesitation, repetition or deviation. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article has now been cleaned up sufficiently. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks in good shape Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per others. Spengouli (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, good improvements took just a minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well respected entertainer in UK, oldest working presenter (at 96) and presenter of longest running panel show since its inception Hoffie01 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good to me. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

 * Post-posting support clearly still ongoing and being updated. No issues. --M asem (t) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This has to stay as Ongoing because it is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the logical thing to do. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Endorse Filing this under WP:COMMONSENSE. No need to jump through the bureaucratic hoops all over again. It's still front page news more or less daily and likely to remain so for a while. The article is still in good shape. Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting endorse clearly the right call. Lepricavark (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PP Support – Still very much in the news, more than any other ongoing item we've put in recently. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Clearly still in the news, and likely to be so for a while. Hard to get an edit in edgewise in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting as ongoing The story just keeps getting bigger. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clear consensus in favour so just tagging as posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Automatically support the story is being update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – With the toll in China at 106 132 and some cases confirmed elsewhere, we should keep a close watch on this for possible new blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment there was consensus for OG in the original nom, good call from Stephen to post. This is going to be in the box for a year... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides

 * Oppose until significantly expanded. Currently it is a micro-stub consisting of two sentences and a total of 41 words (including numbers). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Still a bit short but it's adequate and referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

*Support on notability; oppose on quality. Clearly undeniable deserving of ITN, but it urgently needs improvement. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: Two sentences and two refs isn't nearly enough for the main page. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nixinova, the article is not nearly long enough for the main page at this point. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - significant event. I have tried expanding the article as required and it should be a lot better now. Droodkin (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed, very nice work. Though somewhat short, it is packed with good info and is highly readable. another look?  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please correct the blurb ASAP? There is a comma between a subject and a predicate, a terrible mistake. (Floods and landslides in southeastern Brazil, kill at least 60 people...)--Adûnâi (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash

 * Wait until the US says it was shot down. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per 331dot. We don't have enough information right now and most of what we are hearing is coming from the Taliban. It should go w/o saying that they are not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Wait  – While the U.S. has confirmed the crash, no details available. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - whether or not it was shot down, the article isn't in bad shape with all that is known included. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It matters if it was shot down or not, as that likely affects coverage of this and the significance of the crash. I haven't seen a great deal of coverage of this- but if the Taliban brought down an aircraft, that's much more notable. Military personnel take on the risk of things like this happening when they sign up(unlike civilian aircraft carrying passengers). 331dot (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether it was shot down, or suffered a double engine failure (per forum gossip), it is still the first fatal hull loss for the type. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – U.S. retrieves the remains of two crewmen, the only occupants, and says no indication plane was shot down. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose somewhat trivial accident by the sounds of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I suspected, an unfortunate but run of the mill accident that the Taliban is trying to turn into propaganda hay. Good faith nomination given what we knew at the time (which wasn't much) but no thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "an unfortunate but run of the mill accident" describes the vast majority of these disaster articles we post, and as mjroots points out this is the first hull loss for the type. Still, I see this nom is toast. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First fatal hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

 * Oppose unless this has wider news coverage- which may not happen for a simple overrunning of the runway, where the chances of casualties are low(unlike say, the Miracle on the Hudson). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this certainly is good news but not really notable enough for main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support not every day an aircraft overruns, and the MD-80s were extensively built. Weak because the article is still kind of disaster-stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only work with what is available. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm not judging contributors just reading it that's my sense of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – although it's very good news, I don't see this as being notable enough for the main page. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 331dot, TRM. Glad they all survived. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's possible the newsworthiness of this item might be inflated due to the previous airline "accident" that took place in Iran. Still, we generally don't post no-casualty accidents on ITN, as morbid as that principle seems.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for posting a no-casualty accident on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN was a different kettle of fish back then.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree that such a large over-run is unusual, as is the under-carriage being ripped from an aircraft full of passengers and it coming to rest on a public road. However, the aircraft seems to have survived as well as anyone could have hoped, and there are only two injuries. A dramatic near-miss certainly, but not significant enough for an ITN blurb. It should be possible to expand the article enough to qualify for DYK. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally don't post near-misses: it would have to be an event like US Airways Flight 1549 ("Miracle on the Hudson") where there was significant attention to the rescue efforts/etc. And even then, not an assurance. --M asem (t) 16:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Grammys

 * Support, but comment - She also won Song of the Year and Best New Artist. Maybe those two should be incorporated. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak support  - Article needs a bit more prose, and I've tried to add a bit where I can. Of note, Eilish is the first artist to win Album, Song, Record and New Artist in the same year since 1981, and that was the only other time this has ever happened. That could also be mentioned in the blurb too instead of just the two awards. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to a full Support now that there is sufficient prose in this article (For once!). For the blurbs, personal preference is for either alt2 or alt3, but any of them would do. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The "Nominations" section is an eyesore and I'd like to see some prose outside of the lead, but thank you all who worked on this article for doing it this year, and staving off the otherwise inevitable ITN/R removal threads. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb with suggestions I would Support altblurbs because they not only awarding one awards, but also two awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment for the sake of brevity can the blurb just say "Billie Eilish wins record of the year and album of the year"? We barely fit 4 blurbs in the box these days ... --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The nominations section seems to be completely unreferenced &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. History made! MSN12102001 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – nominations section is largely, if not entirely, unreferenced; while I don't doubt the accuracy of the information, I think references would be of benefit. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and proposing Alt III and Alt IV . No need for trivia in ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC); Edited 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the article to expand on the pre-existing controversy and the tribute to Kobe Bryant. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment History made indeed. This might be the first time in like five or six years that we've been able to post the ITN/R Grammys on ITN. Thanks, Billie Eilish!--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose outside the lead and also maintenance-tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an inappropriate "too many wikilinks" tag that has now been removed.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Too little prose. The article is also clearly trying to evade the controversies leading up to the ceremony, which should be mentioned. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to update the article to address these concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, that looks better. Willing to support now. Good work. Teemu08 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as it is focused on Billie Elilish alone, instead of the grammys as a whole. I would support a blurb that is a bit broader. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The normal blurb we use for the Grammys is to cover the Album and Record of the year (this is what the first blurb had done) and nothing else. But Elilish "swept" the top awards, a fact that is clearly important by the RSes, so while the trivia (2nd time its happened) can go, naming the 4 major ones she won is fully reasonable. --M asem (t) 16:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem. The four awards we would conceivably put in the blurb were all won Eilish. Removing her from the blurb also removes the major news story about the awards. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient prose now. Alt3 is fine. Looks like this ITN/R might actually get posted for once :)-- P-K3 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, though the others are fine as well. Morgan695 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this up. :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Altobelli

 * Support Jeez, that is some impressive work.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment How would other editors feel about adding his article to Kobe’s blurb? Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Best to keep it just to Bryant, like when Soleimani was killed. Juxlos (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support decent article Juxlos (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article ready for posting. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good article. Poydoo (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Railsback

 * Weak support Refs are fine, but the Political career section could benefit from a pronoun. Every sentence calls the man Ralisback.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a few pronouns scattered around now, and article is ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . This was stale actually, but I sneaked it in at the bottom because the death was only reported on Jan 22 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Kobe Bryant

 * Support - Wikipedia is experiencing an explosion of traffic right now so I apologize if this ECs anyone. Information is still coming in but if true, this should be considered for a blurb. He is retired but only recently, and this is extraordinarily unusual.--WaltCip (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Bryant was tops in his field(even if just retired) and the manner of his death is unusual.  I don't know if the other four casualties should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: World news and extremely notable former athlete, but lets wait for more details to update the article. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 20:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, pitching altblurb 1 The fact that four others died in this crash is also noteworthy. —BLZ · talk 20:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - All over the place at the moment. If needed here is another source ABC. PackMecEng (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 I think the fact that this nuked Wikipedia's servers is pretty good evidence of blurb notability. At a glance the article looks in fairly good shape and I don't think it is too big of an issue for the main page. Yes, it needs a little tuning, but that will be challenging until the news dies down. I'm willing to IAR a little here given the unique circumstance of his article being for all intents and purposes uneditable right now. Agree that the others in the crash should be mentioned Teemu08 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Both blurbs looks good to me (the four other can be mentioned, but the noteworthy event is Bryant’s death rather than the crash itself) but this should be posted after the WP outage dies down. — MarkH21talk 20:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As a Wikinotable person has been killed in an aviation accident, a stand-alone article on the accident is justifiable. The aircraft in question was a Sikorsky S-76B, which is a large helicopter. Am being affected by the reported issues accessing Wikipedia in Europe at the moment by only getting intermittent access, otherwise I'd start the article myself. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support for blurb, but strongly support for RD It is very good, well reference and notable. But i would willing for support it posted for RD because his death.
 * Support blurb3 - Top of field, unusual death, article is of good quality. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 20:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on completely unsourced tables. There are a handful of sentences that could use a cite but I can overlook those given the generally decent condition of the rest of the article. But all of the stats tables are unsourced. That needs to be fixed before this can be posted. [Note: The servers are barely functioning under the weight of all the traffic, so I'm having trouble refreshing pages and this oppose may already have been resolved by time I get it posted.] Support blurb once these issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tables now sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb, with the third being my preference. The article has 447 citations and is almost entirely sourced.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb sources are saying it's his four daughters who have also died.... needs to go into the blurb. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing conflicting information on that. It's not mentioned in the ESPN article.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that they're saying it was one of his daughters, not all four. But it hasn't been confirmed (or denied) yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the four daughters info from ABC has since been deleted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (multiple times EC) We have a consensus for a blurb. The article is loading super slow so it will take it a while to expand the updates but the basics are there. Posting. --Tone 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec &times; ∞) Support Kobe's death is why servers are on the fritz? Oh. A world-class athlete dying at 41 (the kind of death that makes me exclaim "HOLY SHIT" and drop my phone when I first saw), is much different than a septuagenarian comedian with dementia. This will be reflected in the press as writers put out their thinkpieces in the coming hours. The death is news, rather than merely being in the news. Article quality is great. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Blurb two time MVP winner doesn't strike me as "transformative world leader" in his field and he doesn't pass the "Mandela/Thatcher" test for me. Still the media circus probably justifies. Awards section in the infobox needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The other thing that merits a death a blurb is if the death itself is a notable event, not just the career of the deceased person. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 🏆 Five-time NBA champion
 * 🏅 2008 NBA MVP
 * 🏅 Two-time NBA Finals MVP
 * 🏅 Two-time NBA scoring champion
 * 🏅 Two-time Olympic champion
 * 🏆 2018 Academy Award winner
 * The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support His death broke Wikipedia. What more do we need?  The article itself isn't accessible right now, so I can't really look through it, though.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're the second person to attribute the availability issues to Bryants death. Is there some RS reporting the same? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. TMZ's site also went down when they broke the news.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like a planned upgrade caused a spike in CPU usage and response times -- not Bryants death. Just wanted to close the loop on that one doesn't affect support for blurb at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support ALT1 preferred; the other four people deserve some recognition.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldn’t even so much as fix a typo because a billion people came to Wikipedia at the same time. (I for one didn’t believe it was really Kobe Bryant. I thought there was another Kobe Bryant who was a basketball player and Oscar winner too. Then I thought, maybe it was his dad. Absolute disbelief.) Hopefully, the page is stable enough to actually be a recent death notice. ⌚️ (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, it's a little premature to say his death "broke Wikipedia". The site has been having problems all day. Wikipedia tweeted about it at 11:20 PT. TMZ broke the news about Kobe Bryant's death at 11:24. Surachit (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would we be able to remove the word "former"? I don't think it's necessary. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Take it up at WP:ERRORS. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is the place to discuss wording changes, not ERRORS, but in any case the word "former" has already been removed. Thx &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've raised this at ERRORS.   He wasn't a ball player when he died, so he was a former player.  It's an important distinction that needs reinstating. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment image needs to be replaced. And yes, it wasn't this death which broke Wikipedia, it's been a bit broken all day.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ESPN now saying that one of Kobe's daughters died in the crash.--WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment image should be replaced with one of kobe. Bohbye (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ’’’Comment’’’ As WaltCip mentioned above, add daughters death to the blurb. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment TMZ corroborates this report about his daughter, and it's currently in the Wikipedia article. Was apparently told to TMZ by a rep for Kobe. https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1221533868433592320  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – L.A. Times says "and four others" but doesn't mention daughter (filed abt 2130 UTC). Mercury-News says "unclear" if family members on board. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are literally dozens of other RS saying as much. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calif. sources. – Sca (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Say wut? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were from Kentucky. Sca (talk)
 * AP quotes 'source' saying daughter Gianna also killed (filed 2145 UTC). – Sca (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's leave professional scrutiny to the professionals. If the majority of reliable sources are corroborating Gianna's death, then we go with that.--WaltCip (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, but bear in mind the AP is the world's largest news-gathering organization. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, we'll stick with RS, this is Wikipedia, not Reuters or the BBC. Vast majority of sources now stating that his daughter was with him when they perished.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment While deeply tragic, his daughter Gianna is not independently notable and I am not seeing any reason to name her in the blurb unless we are going to name all of the other people who also died. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in a high-profile case like this it could be argued that she's notable by virtue of being his daughter and also being killed. It's a judgment call. – Sca (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think it's a case of us all being human beings, it's simple to appreciate that the loss of Bryant and his daughter is worthy of note. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * L.A. now confirms Gianna as victim. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the link I posted a while ago... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * She wasn't there when I first looked at it, but now she is. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Added his daughter to the blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT confirms Gianna. – Sca (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of RS have confirmed this for at least an hour, I don't think it's necessary now to continue to add more when it was made clear to you some time back. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

NYT is the most respected U.S. newspaper with the largest staff. I was a bit uneasy until they confirmed it. – Sca (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - 9 people in total now confirmed dead. Blurb should be updated to reflect this. Andise1 (talk)
 * Source for nine deaths -  Floydian  τ ¢ 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , take it to WP:ERRORS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb support This is exactly the scenario that, in terms of RD guidance, would be taken as an "unusual death", and also with fair consideration of how significant Bryant was (If it was some random 2nd string from a NBA team, that likely would have just been RD, no blurb). This is ITNC RD processing working as intended. --M asem  (t) 23:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose blurb per LaserLegs. One could say Kobe Bryant has won lots of titles, but so have other players. What makes his death more notable then - an unnatural manner of death hardly seems convincing. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kobe Bryant is the most accomplished player in the 21st century in a sport labeled as "global" by at least one person in WT:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An unnatural manner of death and at a relatively young age is an accepted and explicit factor for posting a person's death as a blurb, not even factoring in Kobe Bryant's phenomenal status in sports.--WaltCip (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb one of the greatest basketball players ever + a sudden death that absolutely stuns millions of Americans = a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh FFS, it's posted. OK? Can the rabid fans with their post-posting comments please move on to other more useful tasks? There are always nominations needing more work. Your love for Bryant and for basketball won't help that. It just highlights the US-centrism of this place. HiLo48 (talk)
 * No need to be rude. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors obsessing over one person while ignoring lots of other things to be done for ITN is rude. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a weird definition of rudeness. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's mine. I've made my point. You clearly don't get it. I give up. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate being referred to as a 'rabid fan'. In reality, I was indifferent to Kobe Bryant even during his playing days. Spiteful comments like the above are unhelpful and have no place in a collaborative environment. Even if you had a point (which you don't), there would have been a better way to make it. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So why did you join five other editors with unnecessary, almost identical post-posting comments? It's not a good look for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Might be time to close this whole thread up. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That has been my point all along. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe just stop talking. I'm sure we'd all be very happy with that. Lepricavark (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't give HiLo48 what he wants. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I'll be criticised for even posting here again, but I had a moron come from here to my Talk page to suggest that mourning made that obsessional behaviour above OK. Sorry, no it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Boeing 777X

 * Comment I want to support this, but I don't see where the article has a paragraph about the test flight (it should be in production?). The whole production section has tense issues which need adjustment (this happens when you build an article from news stories). Consider "the GE9X first flight has been delayed ... but the slip should not change the engine certification schedule". That was two years ago. Did it change the schedule or not? I don't care enough about the subject to fix the article, but reading through it felt like a 4 year summary of press releases. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support incremental change but article is good and it's in the news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The test flight of a new design doesn't seem sufficiently significant. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – I think it's okay. 70.138.211.34 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * non-rhetorical question - what is the value of a superlative "world's largest twinjet" when the world has quadjets?  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Quadjets are being phased out. The A380 program ended, the A340 is long over, the 747 is on life-support. Tri and quad jets almost exclusively predate ETOPS certification so there is some notability in the evolution of very large and very long range twin jets. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's a derivative of an existing model (although a larger derivative than others). Even a newly designed aircraft with no prior derivatives failed to garner enough support for inclusion on ITN and I don't see why Boeing 777X should be any different (other than having the word "Boeing" attached to it). <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 15:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was 7 years ago .... we're not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Questions: it's unclear to me how much this differs from existing variants of the 777. If we posted this, would it set a precedent for every minor modification of a major airliner? And would it not be better to wait until the aircraft enters service (2021 if all goes to plan)? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They added four frames to stretch it out. The big question is if it will require a new type certificate or not. If it's the former it may not be that noteworthy but if the latter then it's functionally a new aircraft. Now is when it's most likely to be in the news ... we post 8 to 14 air crashes a year, personally I feel like we can do one new aircraft variant every two years but that's just me. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - How a TEST FLIGHT notable enough to be in "In the News?" --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if this winds up posted, it'll be rather contradictory, considering Microsoft terminating support for Windows 7 wasn't posted and both Windows 7 & the Boeing 777X are the products of certain companies. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, does not seem notable enough for the main page considering the flight itself, the subject of the blurb, does not even have its own page. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jordan Sinnott

 * Support slim article but enough, and referenced, and tragic death. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not seeing anything about his recent career. It's mentioned in the infobox but not explicitly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just added that - it only needed a sentence, to be honest. 'Support and marked Ready. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - just over the threshold for RD. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 15:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pete Stark

 * Could use eyes... – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rob Rensenbrink

 * Oppose substantial work required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuri Viktorovich Kuznetsov

 * Support - sourced. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 15:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Elazığ earthquake

 * Support, but may need further update. Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  12:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The "Tectonic setting" is basically filler and you're left with three sentences describing the technicals of the quake and one about the damage caused. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. But need updates. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ... in principle, pending expansion of thin existing article. (Three sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lookin' better. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Clayton Christensen

 * Support - He was notable in the business world and a popular author. - Indefensible (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On balance, the sourcing here is very problematic. Lots of missing citations or primary sources. Also lots of LDS-alligned stuff that, while not junk, cannot be the foundation of an encyclopedia article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not adequately cited. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support there's nothing wrong with religiously-based sources (that document his role in church institutions) that are reliable. --Varavour (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But there is something wrong with posting BLPs with [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just the point - they're not reliable (go check RSN if you don't trust me). We wouldn't publish an article about a priest that is entirely cited to the Catholic church. A few in a long article is okay, but of the 28 citations currently in the article, 7 are to the Deseret News and 6 more are written by the subject himself. I've no doubt Christensen has seen broad and sustained coverage in reliable sources; but they are not cited here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Question - how does the citing for Christensen compare to Seamus Mallon? If Christensen meets the threshold for notability and his citing is at the same standard or better, then he should be posted. - Indefensible (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * About as well as Boris Johnson compares to Usain Bolt in the 100 meter.  GreatCaesarsGhost   05:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly? There are articles referenced from The Economist, WSJ, Bloomberg, HBS, and Forbes--those are all respectable sources. Christensen's article is actually rated better than Mallon's: C-class vs start-class. - Indefensible (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not sufficient to have some material cited to reliable sources, but rather "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged [must be cited] to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The bulk of this article is not cited to reliable sources. This is not the place to discuss Mallon - if you have concerns, you may note them in that nomination or in the Errors page. GreatCaesarsGhost   17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that Mallon's article isn't post-worthy, it's that Christensen's article is rated higher than Mallon's [and should thus similarly be posted]. There are more citations for Christensen than for Mallon and only a couple places where the {citation needed} tag is used--if that is really the issue, the affected statements can just be removed. - Indefensible (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so none of that is of any relevance to getting Christensen's article posted, which is the matter currently being discussed. Separately, but just as important, my comments do not prevent the article from being posted; they only draw an admin's eye to issues. They will sustain or reject my concerns. If you think those concerns are unjustified, the admin may agree. If my concerns are valid, someone will need to fix the article before it can be posted. In any case, there is no need to engage with me whatsoever.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) March for Life

 * Comment if the 2020 march had a few paragraphs of prose including preparations, speakers, police, counter-marches, etc all that good stuff I could support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the main hook here is that Trump personally attended, that should be in the blurb. Otherwise I don't see much reason for posting this annual protest, held to commemorate  Roe v. Wade. While 100,000 is a large crowd, it isn't a big newsmaker(as noted by the nominator). 331dot (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not internationally significant and at best, a bipartisan flashpoint for American politics. Droodkin (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Brand news. The president spoke there. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So add something to HIS article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Happens every year. Trump did attend for the first time, but it's still a regular event. On top of that, the relevant section about the 2020 March for Life is literally one sentence. Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Recurring annual protest lacking the kind of significance we generally look for in order to post such things at ITN. Trump's presence does not alter that reality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose {removed personal opinion}--WaltCip (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is way out of line and I strongly advise you to strike or better, simply delete the comment. See also FORUM, NPA and BLP. I'm INVOLVED, so this is not an admin warning but you should know better. This is not borderline or questionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Politicians attend rallies all the time.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Life doesn't need support. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Politicians attend rallies to hopefully convince those attending they are nice people. There is no news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The March is a routine event - only if it drew massive crowds after the event would we post. And every time a Trump association is added we should ask "Would we do the same if we were talking Obama? Or Bush? Or Clinton? Or Bush Sr.?" and I hope obviously here the answer is no. Trump is an extremely divisfy figure but we have to be very wary of how much attention the media makes of tracking him. We are not in that position. --M asem (t) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seamus Mallon

 * Support Short article mostly referenced although some dead links need to be fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment added a few CN tags, most aren't a big deal but his position on NRA violence and police reform need strong refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * References added throughout including those 2 specified by LaserLegs Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LGTM marked Ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gudrun Pausewang

 * Support but why does the article give two different translations of the title of Die Wolke without explaining which one is the official English title. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that clearer now (Cloud literal, the other published)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until awards are reliably sourced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, they were in the article before expanding. Referenced now, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Cagua fire

 * No way we can post that short an article. And from I can read, this was accidental death by fire, and not as severe as we'd consider other tragedies. --M asem (t) 06:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose micro-stub, not encyclopedically significant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I read the Spanish language article (through Google translate) it has a lot more words, but not a lot more info. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article contains no more info that what is available in this blurb. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  22:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Franz Mazura
The source treasure is now used, just one review in Italian left, - anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to the project guidelines, discogs (as user-generated content) is not considered a reliable source, so the discography needs properly sourcing before this can be posted. The rest looks satisfactory.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you see that there was no discography when I nominated?? It was kindly added by LeQuattroStagioni. Sigh, I'll go again and add the sources that are in the discographies of the pieces. - Or should we take away the discography until after RD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, job done (and another hour later for writing about the next one who died, two days ago.) I found two good reviews on the way, wish I had time to put them in the prose. Later perhaps. - I wonder why he has this entry on WorldCat but it doesn't show in authority control. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It shows in authority control: https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n85025197/ as entry "WorldCat Identities (via VIAF): 61733733" Grimes2 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now it does. When I looked last - beginning of the ref search, I got a 404 error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see that Gerda, but that's because I was otherwise engaged and then spent the afternoon out doing other things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you satisfied with this now, TRM? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping, it's good to go. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, are you satisfied. Others? We talk about a nice addition to the article, not about the body of the article. This great person died three days ago, presentation held up because one person is busy elsewhere and has no time to look? Really? - Thanks to the RD-crew, however, for the speedy handling of noms so far in 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm. Since not one other soul has actually supported this, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the only person to actually issue a preference to re-visit.  Which I am doing.  And I don't think the three-day delay is my doing either.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am calm. I didn't say revisiting wasn't allowed, only that waiting for the revisit of someone who said he was busy wasn't a prerequisit for being ready. I confess a certain nervousness, remembering Márta Kurtág whose going stale was one of two failures last year I haven't yet forgiven myself. Thank you, TRM and all. Now to Gudrun Pausewang.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is not really with me or waiting for me, after all I try to comment and return to every single candidate here. The problem is a general lack of interest in many such nominations, and that's something you might like to try to address at various other venues e.g. wikiprojects who may be interested in such nominations.  The fact that I read each nomination, comment on them and even usually try to make general improvements should be lauded really.  Where's my barnstar?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Please donate my barnstar to TRM. What a hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. And coming from you.  Such an honour!!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. Even I have to make allowances. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, I'm no barnstar-giver, just number-1-thanks clicker in 2019, and think you got a few of those ;) - I also awarded you the rare Impact, and partly for what you do here, day by day. Satis? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Credits? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Lehrer

 * Comment Parts of 'Early Life' and 'Career' need referencing (tagged) Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. J4lambert (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , when you provide a reason, it allows other editors to try to fix the problem. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  23:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, have resolved several citation-needed tags. p  b  p  23:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready now. I have add refs for anything that was missing one. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Doomsday clock

 * 100 seconds? Really? How long is this farce going to continue? Editorializing aside, I have nominated the Doomsday Clock before and consensus was usually against it. So oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all previous nominations. It's a meaningless scale. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We'll post the clock when it hits midnight and the nuclear holocaust is underway. Until then, its just a meme. Teemu08 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But none of us will be around to post it then. ;) 331dot (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg
 * Oppose – Sca (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (However, a Doomsday Device would be a different matter.) – Sca (talk)


 * Oppose - Mostly per Modest Genius. Otherwise it does not appear to be anything special at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Karlen

 * Oppose per nom, Theatre, TV & Films sections all unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protests

 * Weak support removal - it's still in the news but it's ceased to be very prominent. I'm sure India remains captivated by it (and people are welcome to cite the well-known "please do not" statement above), but the rest of the world appears to have moved on. Banedon (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose  Removal. Tens of thousands (e.g. 300,000 on 21 Jan) of people are protesting regularly in several cities  and today it is all over the international news due to the court cases.  filed by protesters and violence  The article is getting regular updates. I note, LaserLegs has nominated this removal a second time and without good reasons again.  D Big X ray ᗙ  23:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "updates" you mentioned aren't in the article, which is where they need to be to stay in the box. If you have commentary on me or my intentions, take it to WP:ANI --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff of almost 43 KB of updates in the last one week, and they appear very much in the article to me. Are you sure you are talking of the same article titled "Citizenship Amendment Act protests". -- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal at this time. Topic is still being covered, article is in sufficient condition and still getting daily updates on latest developments.  Checks all of the boxes.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The latest developments in the article aren't "protests" it was a petition and lawsuits. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what beef you have with this article, but you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove. Here are a few major updates of past 1 week and clearly they are more than lawsuits and petitions. see below. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 16 January
 * Police in Chennai banned all protests in the city for a period of 15 days. 6 were detained by the police for protesting against CAA.
 * 17 January
 * The Punjab Legislative Assembly, that has the Indian National Congress in majority, passed a resolution against the Act and urged the Modi Government to avoid discrimination on the basis of religion through the new Act. The resolution was moved by Punjab minister for parliamentary affairs Brahm Mohindra of the Congress and was supported by the Aam Aadmi Party and the Lok Insaaf Party
 * Inspired by the Shaheen Bagh protest, a massive anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protest started in Mumbai. Around 10,000 women gathered at the YMCA ground in Mumbai to protest in the evening. The protest was organised by a NGO named Mumbai Citizen Quorum.
 * Around 500 women start a sit in protest at the Clock tower grounds in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
 * 18 January
 * Uttar Pradesh police cracked down on the CAA protesters near the Clock Tower in Lucknow
 * 19 January
 * In Delhi, hundreds of protesters joined a protest march holding lighted candles from Jamia University to Shaheen Bagh
 * 20 January
 * Several Labour MPs of the UK parliament discussed the concerns on the CAA, in a meeting organised by South Asia Solidarity Group (SASG) and Ambedkar International Mission (UK) in London.
 * 21 January
 * More than 300,000 people join an anti-CAA protest rally at Kalaburagi in Karnataka.
 * In a unique way of protesting, more than a hundred women protesters at Khureji Khas in Delhi released 10,000 gas filled black coloured balloons with the message "No CAA NPR NRC".
 * Police register cases against 160 women for violation of the ban on assembly and protesting against CAA in Lucknow.
 * Despite ban on assembly, Home Minister Amit Shah addresses a pro CAA public rally at Lucknow.
 * 22 January
 * Thousands of students from 9 universities in North-East India boycott classes and join protest march in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.
 * A 5 kilometer long procession against CAA was led by CM Mamta Bannerjee in Darjeeling, West Bengal.
 * Women continue sit in protests at the Haj House near Kadru Over Bridge in Ranchi, Jharkhand enters third day.
 * 144 CAA related petitions scheduled for hearing in the Supreme Court of India were brought up.

-- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My "beef" with the article is that it is stale, none of the pertinent recent updates you mentioned existed when I nominated the article for removal, instead you added them    then you call me a liar. Tell you what, I'll take it to WP:ANI in the morning. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The version you linked contains 7 updates that are common with what I wrote above. How does 7 equals "none" ? On ANI threats, sure and looking at your past experiences with ANI, due to your ITN behaviour I would advice caution on the WP:BOOMERANG.  D Big X ray ᗙ  02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove I think we've lost sight of the purpose of ongoing with these perma-posts. We should consider both the duration on the main page and the relevance of recent events. 10K people at a protest is a Tuesday in many places around the globe.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "is a Tuesday"? Banedon (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * = "is routine." Very large protests have become extremely common in the last few years. I would speculate that protests of >10K people occur in multiple places every day. 159.53.174.143 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the removal, the event is still ongoing and the news are still covering the event e.g. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First link is about a court ruling, not protests. Second and third links are analysis, not "new, pertinent information" as stipulated In_the_news. Thanks for proving my point. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove per nomination. Intensity of the protests is decreased and of course, relevance too. These protests have trivial mentions in the news right now compared to last month.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As updated here more than 300,000 people joined in a rally on 21 Jan. I would not rush to call that reduced intensity or relevance. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sorry for late reply, "....not prominent....rest of the world appears to have moved on..."- POV..on what basis. People in New Zealand day before yesterday protesting and lawmakers also participated, online campaign going on. We are talking about in the news, not how many people visiting. By the way daily article page views showing its more than 20,000. Dey subrata (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because follwoing the recent hearing on 22nd January, 2020 from the SC on this bill, there has been new developments on the protests across India. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment At the risk of this becoming an ad hominem argument... Please explain your continuous effort to remove items from the Ongoing tab on ITN. This seems like something you have made a pet project for a while now, and most of the time, consensus is fiercely against you, as it is here.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * we can discuss this at WT:ITN, at my talk page, or at WP:ANI if you think I'm not behaving appropriately -- I don't think this is the right venue. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news as requested. D Big X ray ᗙ  15:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This is still making a huge ongoing forever impact in Indian politics and the economy. It would continue for unforeseen future until the Indian government withdraw from legalising the citizenship act. Abishe (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal. Per nom and Banedon. Very similar situation to the Hong Kong protests, which are also still continuing.  Spencer T• C 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * support removal - It doesn't appear to be any more aggressive/notable than other protests that happen all the time. It's at a low intensity and days can go by without the article gaining an update. The protests in places such as USA, France and Hong Kong can achieve greater scale and intensity without being posted online. At least the Lebanon one is high intensity and has had far reaching consequences for the Lebanese people (including the resignation and replacement of its government) whereas the Indian one seems to be a few small protests in a country of a billion people. When the protests reach the intensity of the ones in Hong Kong and France, then it can be re-posted to Ongoing. Tsukide (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will add that there are several protests around the world of similar intensity, some of which have had further-reaching consequences such as the protests in Iran and Iraq, but that they don't get posted to the front page. The protests in places such as Latin America, France and Hong Kong tend to be of higher intensity. The small scale and low intensity of the protests which can easily mimic the anti-Trump protests that are always happening, especially in a country of over a billion people, means that the protests are not severe enough for the front page. Tsukide (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you think something deserves to get posted, feel free to nominate it so that community can discus and get it posted, instead of using unposted events as an excuse to pull things down.  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm using them as comparisons as to why the these protests should not be on the front page in their current form. Tsukide (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The updates have been ongoing. CAA protests garnered 900,000 views in the last 30 days, (30K avg everyday) while Lebanese protests got 23,000 views in the last 30 days. So this also gives an idea of the relevance of these protests.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support removal similar to other ongoing protests at Category:Ongoing protests. 2401:4900:2180:4295:8D0F:80D2:51D3:EB62 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who opposed and support ongoing removal, Indian CAA protests now added at
 * Current Events sidebar in section Ongoing protest. I added it in order to participate if this article was removed from Ongoing items, same as Hong Kong protest, Australian bushfires, or even Wuhan coronavirus outbreak as it happened today. I also planned to add Shaheen Bagh protests to Ongoing events sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD or blurb: Terry Jones

 * Strong support blurb - A prime example of a comedian and writer who was absolute tops in his business. Definitely on the same level as other blurbed persons we have posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Neither the manner of his death nor the events surrounding it need special explanation; as a result there's nothing to say in a blurb other than "he died". Such types of death are what RD was created for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A person need not die in an unusual manner in order to be blurbed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The guidance listed at In the news/Recent deaths tends to disagree with that, it notes "In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Several people, yourself among them, have asserted this is an exception to that rule, but have provided no evidence this merits an exception.  That is, where can I read in sources outside of Wikipedia that his death is of such significance that it merits a blurb?  Anyone can assert anything.  It just requires one to type things.  The real kicker is how can one show evidence that ones assertion is valid as supported by reliable sources.  I've looked, I'm not seeing the sort of reliable sources coverage to indicate this merits a blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your second comment is well-stated and valid; I'm wondering why it was not your first. It would simplify matters if editors commented on the obvious criterion for which the blurb is being suggested, rather than oppose an argument that no one is making.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I only made one point: We should follow the guidance based on existing standards already and long since written down, unless people can provide clear evidence that an exception should be made. Normal operating procedure is to post deaths to RD, and where we post a blurb instead, there are criteria for that.  My objections directly address the reasons people are giving for posting this as a blurb, which is that Jones somehow counts as an exception to the standard " if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." which I quote a second time.  People have asserted his career is itself meritorious of a blurb.  I have merely noted that such assertions should carry little to no weight without evidence that sources outside of Wikipedia are treating it with a similarly elevated level of attention over the normal obituary cycle.  No one, has yet, provided such evidence.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Standards can change. Consensus can change. If the standards do not agree with the process that we have been undertaking for the past two years or so, that does not inherently mean all of those past actions were mistakes. It could mean that the standards that we came up with years ago no longer reflect the editorial consensus on ITN/C. I am arguing from the standpoint of overall notability, recognition, and how news sources have responded to Terry Jones's passing. Several notable people also in Jones's field have spoken out on social media, as per the BBC article. It would not surprise me if there were further news coverage even after today.--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dozens of dead celebrities have been eulogized by their peers and inspirees on Twitter this year, with quite a few mentioned even one day later in the news. That's a low bar to crawl over. Keep the higher standard, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong support blurb per WaltCip. Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per WaltCip. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) - Having said that: minor improvements are still wanted, example ref 26, which is a bare url, and positioned after "Medieval" about which it says nothing, while it would rather support "Barberians" which has no ref at all. - The image - sorry - is awful, at least in that size, looking as if a hand grew at a strange place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead image has recently changed. to Spanish Inquisition character Cardinal Biggles, but not many close-ups to choose from. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The image really needs to be of TJ as himself, rather than playing a character. That said, there is a better one, so I swapped the image in the nom. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the swap, but it's not a great image, so perhaps blurb but no image. If we need to show this one, it might be cropped bottem and right, to have his face more in the centre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This might upset the purists, but how about a crop of this image? Monty_Python_Live_02-07-14_12_47_22_(14415436819).jpg It shows him performing the "Spanish Inquisition" scene, and would be a good way to pay tribute to his comedic genius! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hell yes Well what you got? Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and blurb; egg bacon and blurb; egg bacon sausage and blurb; blurb bacon sausage and blurb; blurb egg blurb blurb bacon and blurb; blurb sausage blurb blurb bacon blurb tomato and blurb; blurb blurb blurb egg and blurb; blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb blurb baked beans blurb blurb blurb or Lobster Thermidor au Crevette with a Mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and blurb. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eughhh! Have you got anything without blurb in it? I don't want any blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, there's egg, bacon and blurb, that hasn't got much blurb in it, Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least on this nomination, I think we can afford a bit of Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam....--- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333, Please unbold the comment. D Big X ray ᗙ  14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD only per User:Jayron32. I know he is a popular actor and have seen Monty Python films. The subject lacks major awards that UK confers. I am not convinced that a blurb is merited here.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to RD. Blurb discussions may continue &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you moved the blurb criteria to an information page off the main ITN criteria? As says the legend, info pages are not policy and not vetted, where I believe the blurb criteria is.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb not Mandela or Thatcher --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but he's Terry Jones.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor were Prince or Carrie Fisher, but there we go. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that we are not required to repeat past mistakes forever. If something had been done in the past that should not have been, it doesn't mean we must continue to do the wrong thing forever.  At any point, we must make our decisions on what is the right thing to do, not on what we may or may not have done before (each of which in retrospect may be judged as having been a bad idea).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Prince's death was a complete surprise (rather than old age), and was a top recording artist in his field. Fisher is the type of blurb case we want to avoid. --M asem (t) 16:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb The crowd here skews both nerd and British, so I think we may be overstating his importance. The Pythons are big, but does each get a blurb?  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a Wikiproject WP:WPSPAM. We have a content guideline about WP:SPAM. Who is a key person who caused the word "spam" to mean other things than food? Terry Jones. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - on balance, yes I think so. I had a "wow moment" when I saw the news, and it's front page on the websites of the New York Times and Le Monde, so is a global story already. I would also support WP:IAR (if there is any rule on this) and use a crop of the Spanish Inquisition photo, as mentioned above, as it is a fitting tribute to him. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect a picture of the Spanish Inquisition! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody expected it :O Tone 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , then I hope you are going to invoke this WP:IAR for every artist across the world. If you aren't going to do that then your acts are actually reinforcing the opinion that the ITN is biased in favour of American and British personalities. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * my mention of IAR was related to the choice of image, not the decision as to whether to blurb or not. As for ITN being biased in favour of American/British personalities, that's not actually the case. It's actually biased in favour of things that are in the news. And that people want to read our articles about because they're in the news. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , then I stand corrected. I got an impression that you are using IAR for the blurb. Which news ? The British and American news sites will obviously give a disproportionate coverage for their domestic audience, passing the buck wont help reducing the bias. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Popular and influential, but not at the level of global importance at which we should be setting a blurb.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Yes, I think so. You can usually tell by the amount and level of reaction to a death and I believe this clears the bar. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - I may be a huge MP fan, but we have to recognize that few of the individual members had a significant impact "top of the field" contributions for entertainment beyond Python (Cleese and Gilliam, they are different stories). His health issues were documented so this death was not a surprise, either. We want to avoid the fan-driven impulse to post this like what happened with Carrie Fisher. RD is fine enough. --M asem  (t) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Much as I enjoyed his work, he died of dementia in old age, and the reaction to his death has not been a major news story in itself. Very sad, but exactly what RD is for. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I definitely think this passes the bar for a Blurb mention. Has received massive amount of attention.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Fond of the man's work as I am, I don't see why this is blurbworthy. He was old, it was well known he was gravely ill, and he's not as well-known outside of Python as Cleese/Gilliam/Idle, which limits his influence. (Not dismissing his comedic skills, more than Python as a whole deserves some group credit.) Nohomersryan (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as per statement of WaltCip Joseywales1961 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per WaltCip --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Look, I love Monty Python as much as the next person, but this is not a blurb worthy death. It strikes me as systemic bias at its core to think of one in this case. He was not a Bowie / Mandela / Thatcher type, and his death wasn't as shocking as Prince or Carrie Fisher. I don't see the level of tributes coming out for TJ as did for those deaths, which is what made those blurb worthy. RD is fine here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup - I've seen comments from the other living Pythons and some other significant writers, but this is not "shocking" the world that we'd normally post blurbs on. The battle with dementia made his death a matter of when, not if, and everyone had been ready for it. --M asem (t) 17:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb agreed that he was a comedic genius and a step above a lot of the people on RD, but still not former U.S. President/British PM tier. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb please As someone not of the US, the UK or the Commonwealth, I'd say that a Python deserves a blurb. As to the actual blurb, I think Jones' legacy other than being "one of the pythons" would be being credited as director in two of the greatest comedy films of all time. Be best if "director" could be inserted somewhere. Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's a common name and so a blurb would provide some helpful context for the reader. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb it's there if I look for it, but other topics are dominating the headlines. Banedon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb The proposal is a shorter version of his existing line at Deaths in 2020, and his bio's opening sentence. Clearly cooler than Thatcher, Franklin or Prince, but that's irrelevant. Slightly complicated stories are what matter here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is fine for a not-unexpected death from natural causes. P-K3 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – beloved comedian, yes, but not top of his field as far as I can tell. His death was also long expected. Falls short of the importance for a blurb, imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Regardless of intense cult following, Terry Jones isn't a generally significant household name, IMHO. – Sca (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb -- Not a household name. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   02:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - per the above opposes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Morgan Wootten

 * Support I expanded the lead. Good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jō Shishido

 * Oppose The filmography is unreferenced, and there are several other unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per P-K3. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang J. Fuchs

 * Support – Seems well-documented. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019–20 Lebanese protests

 * Comment In the same article, Al-Jazeera says "dozens" injured and Reuters says "370". Which is it? And how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "dozens" were injured in the protests near Martyr's Square. More than 370 were injured during the whole day. I don't see a discrepancy. The Reuters article was published the day after, so it is not surprising that they have a better handle on the figure. I don't understand what the question "how many were trying to reach Martyr’s Square in the first place?" has to do with the blurb suggested. If you can find out how many, feel free to add it to the article. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that this be placed under "ongoing" instead since it is ongoing. It could/should replace the protests in India which hasn't moved in three days. I wonder if either is worthy of the front page though. -- Tsukide (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You might consider nominating the CAA protests for removal --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Either blurb or ongoing. Article quality is in good shape, it seems to be actively updated, and the topic is being covered by reliable news sources in sufficient depth.  I would be good featuring this article on the main page, and it could either be as a blurb or ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is ready now. BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing as there doesn't seem to be a significant event that would have made it as a blurb in it's own right. Stephen 01:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jaroslav Kubera

 * Support – I found no reason to oppose. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - porfa. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) Ongoing: 2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus

 * Support ongoing because there are many case about coronavirus that can be spread into another country. It is highly notable to included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing elderly people dying of pneumonia is hardly unusual, and human to human transmission has not been established. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the international news right now and is provoking a government response. If it proves to be less worrying than expected, we can always take it off ongoing then. Banedon (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I change my mind, support blurb per Spencer. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only. This is the type of item that would be great for a blurb: posted once and ages off, and then won't be stuck on the template indefinitely. Items like these are hard to pinpoint since it takes time to isolate the virus and there's a lot of looking back to see when the first case started, so I wouldn't have a problem posting a blurb "late" per se. Example wording: A new strain of coronavirus infects over two hundred people in China, killing three. or something like that. Then if it gets drastically worse to an ongoing-level item, then it can roll off the template onto there.  Spencer T• C 05:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support its being a public health concern and it seems that have high chances of spreading, even more since cases with people that dont visited the origin place of the virus were confirmed, rasing the chances of concern about human spread, i think that would be good to be on current events area of front page Meganinja202 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Spencer. -Zanhe (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posted comment I think it is reasonable to posted it as blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.31 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Ongoing seems more appropriate at this point. It is in the news   but so far fatalities are reported at three. – Sca (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb per above, it's an international story. If it proves to be long-lasting, with daily updates over months, we can move it to ongoing after it slips from the bottom of the blurbs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, although even some RS reporting seems rather hyped. But deaths have risen to six. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing With confirmed deaths, and word that this is human-to-human contagious, this is going to be a big medical story for weeks as they try to contain it. --M asem (t) 15:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And to add, there's a reported case in the US too, though CDC has it at low risk. . So very much should stay ongoing once it falls off since more cases likely to arise worldwide. --M asem (t) 19:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have left a hidden admin note next to the item stating "if updated, consider rolling to Ongoing".  Spencer T• C 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We've actually discontinued that practice. If someone wants it in ongoing they'll need to nominate it as such (this was an OG nom but consensus was blurb). --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out LaserLegs, I wasn't aware it had changed. Best,  Spencer T• C 02:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-post-posting support + pre-support for ongoing similar to Kivu Ebola epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet for me if the number of casualties was changed, it is no longer used as blurb, but it is more like ongoing section, like India CAA protest, which on 29th December nominated as blurb but posted as ongoing instead because that original blurb was different than actual situation.

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Heath

 * Support. Very long and productive career (reads like a Who's Who of mid 20th-century jazz). Performed on more than 100 albums, including 7 with Heath Brothers and 12 as a leader; also wrote more than 125 compositions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Grammy noms need references. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support job done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article and it is now well referenced Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Gordon A. Smith

 * Article is in good state. I've tagged a couple of sentences where references are needed. Otherwise it looks good &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Afgooye bombing
Comment This article needs some verification and expansion, but i support to it to include in ITN section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would need some expansion, but I'm also not certain of the notability as stands. Feel free to ping me for review when the article's expanded. Kingsif (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this had been an US School Shooting we wouldn't bother posting, and Somalia is a borderline warzone. Juxlos (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really notable, especially for a war zone like Somalia. Prism55 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per two previous. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Kay

 * Support decent article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hwang Sun-hui

 * Comment I just oppose it if it have non-english source. I rather support it if there is a English-language source and change it from Korean language source because it would not understand for speakers who use Latin alphabet. Where is English-language source of death of Hwang Sun-hui?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that mandates article sources to be in English. Naturally someone from North Korean must have majority or even all of sources about them to be in Korean. Sources are not meant for everyone on earth to be able to read them, just that somebody (in this case one who can read Korean) should be able to verify them. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks Okay to me. Well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose lead tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Issue addressed. ミラP 04:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is without information on what she did once appointed to any role. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support appears well-sourced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Although InedibleHulk makes a good point about lack of what she did in her roles (and it being in essence a resume/CV in that respect), it seems that she was notable for her public image (as described in Hwang Sun-hui. Based on the descriptions there she was more of a propaganda poster child and her role on the committees was "ceremonially important", and goes to a greater depth than a resume-article. Given that it's North Korea and not a politician in a democratic country who has more of a role, I would consider this meeting a minimum standard of coverage for RD.  Spencer T• C 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article is well sourced and I agree with Spencer's argument. -Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terence Hallinan

 * Oppose tagged per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I have pulled the section tag after review. The article in general and section in question is well-referenced, in my view, and the article is front-page worthy. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting story, too, especially relative to North Korean "politics". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Glass

 * Weak oppose bare URLs are a no-no for me. Rest of it seems ok, Bueller notwithstanding.... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just ran reflinks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, it's not working for me right now. I'll take another look tomorrow, sorry it's late for me.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Grr stupid time zones. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one cn left. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now, as last cn is fixed Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

 * Oppose per OP, who's clearly showed the article is being continuously updated. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I carefully explained that the article is being "edited" not "updated" with "new, pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITNC. Did you read my comments? Or the article? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Australia is a big place, with different climates across the continent. While the bushfire season is easing off now in northern parts, with the expected tropical influence at this time of year, further south things are just warming up. (A semi-deliberate pun.) Historically, the hottest and most severe fire weather in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania comes in February. The two fires with the biggest death tolls in Australia, the Ash Wednesday bushfires and the Black Saturday bushfires, both occurred in February. While this editor is naturally hoping nothing of the kind happens this year, saying this is all over now would be just a little premature. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Think positive, dammit! A natural lack of hope is not enough. We sometimes need to actually want things to end, before they really do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll think cautiously thanks. The fires in both those earlier events came within about four kilometres of my house, which would be regarded as being in one of Melbourne's (outer) suburbs. I'm still watching out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to have picked a good place to live, my upside-down friend. I got smoked by a record-breaking blizzard yesterday, but it only broke records four provinces over. Still turned the sky almost pure white for a few hours, then the deepest, darkest blue after the hydro went out. One witness described it as "Heaven on Earth, but not in a warm way." That old man then prepared to die regretfully, but it turned out alright, because that old man still is me. May you continue to shine on through what clouds you're shown this "summer", because you're unforsaken, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's the weekend! Wow. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove Like a diamond: Ongoing is forever.™   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The next ongoing item on the Main Page right now is Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. While it feels to me like that's been going on forever, I know rationally that it will stop at some point. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now It seems like need more update about impact of bushfire itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meets the definition suggested at WP:ITN for what is "continuously updated". For example as it relates to the fires in Tasmania. Figures are been updated with new totals frequently enough. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Jayron32 is right. There has been no significant updates. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove If analysis and reaction are all that's new, that's aftermath for you. Aftermath actually does trickle on forever. We're still learning new things about several mass extinction events that happened before Australia was even a thing, doesn't mean we should alert the general public about these latest geological developments. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still in the news (BBC has quoted authorities saying "bushfires far from over") and readers like me would be interested in this topic. 2401:4900:330D:19A2:E9D:46AF:B0B2:2F16 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal. The only event in the past 4 days mentioned in the article text is a benefit concert from the Wiggles on 18 January.  Any other recent additions have been updates to old information.  There have not been substantive updates with new information for quite some time.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. While not unanimous, consensus is that the article has not received constant updates, which is needed to keep the article in Ongoing. Arguments reporting that the subject is still in other news sources were considered, and if the article is updated with new information, should be renominated for ongoing. Best,  Spencer T• C 21:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derek Fowlds

 * Oppose career section and credits unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, sources have been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very short but I think this meets our minimum requirements. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Block of Wikipedia in Turkey lifted

 * Oppose this seems like navel gazing; while this is fantastic news it's not the most noteworthy and we're not here to right great wrongs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor righting the wrong, it's the legal process in Turkey, and as WP:RGW notes, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But was this a great wrong that is being righted? It's true that it's a step towards transparency, but governments engage in censorship of information and the Internet all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think reversing the denial of access to a database of general human knowledge is righting a great wrong and a great step for free speech in country not known for free speech. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Was unsuccessfully nominated on 27 December. Stephen 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the court decision itself, and at the time it was unknown as to if the government would comply. Now, they have. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – We are not the only ones that consider this important. NYTimes, DW, Al Jazeera, VOA, and Bloomberg all consider this important. A precedent setting decision by a supreme court of a nation is usually a good candidate for ITN. Some times nazel-gazing is unavoidable, if everyone is admiring our navel as well. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support certainly notable and relevant for this platform.--MaoGo (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose same reason as last time, this is likely to be a one-off news event with no follow up. Banedon (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not a Wikipedia issue, this is a free speech issue in Turkey.  It was notable that the court ruling was made, and also notable that the government complied, given that Turkey is not known for free speech decisions like this one. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Navel gazing and previously rejected. This is not the whole of the Internet aka China's free speech problem, but one website. Ask if this would have support if instead of Wikipedia it was Google or the New York Times or any other single website. Way too much importance on this being about Wikipedia here. --M asem  (t) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly yes if Google was blocked/unblocked. No for the NYTimes. You underestimate the impact of Wikipedia.org. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely understand we are editing on wikipedia.org, so any story with Wikipedia in it may seem of much higher importance. But it is at the end of the day just another website, not the entire Internet. I'm trying to consider how important this story is without placing any special value on WP beyond being an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, and to that point, it is just effectively a wiki. May be the world's most important wiki, yes, but in considering this type of story for ITN, that doesn't give it any more special weight. --M asem (t) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have the same opinion if it was Facebook, Amazon, or Twitter. Are you telling me that if China blocked Amazon tomorrow that would not be major news worthy of ITN? People are these days intricately connected to the internet. Severing/restoring access to a major part of it has far reaching consequences. Even in the most humble of estimates, Wikipedia has far reaching impact. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, its just one website, not the internet. But it were the case of, for example, Turkey dropping a whole firewall to non-Turkey websites, or China deciding to lift its own firewall, that would be major news as that is definitely a free speech issue either way. Lacking access to one website is not the end of the day. --M asem (t) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support because it is free speech issue in a country, not only Wikipedia itself. It is notable to posted. A previous ITN was opposed because only Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per C&C. A major story involving Wikipedia would be of higher interest to Wikipedia's audience anyway. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support  – A significant development for freedom of information. The fact that it's Wikipedia is not relevant to the basic issue. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: French and German Wikis feature it in their ITN sections. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what the English Wikipedia ought to do. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Navel gazing for sure. But even if it was "Number one ranked site Google unblocked in Turkey" it would not merit front page news. Also, it was not a "significant development for the freedom of information." I was in Turkey multiple times during the "block" and it was an open secret that Wikipedia was available on numerous mobile networks and the block was mostly on landlines/wired networks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca. Far more important than the Boat Race.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * More important than the darts championship, too. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or college football.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that a 'support' vote? – Sca (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: This is not an event just for Turkey; Italian Wikipedia supported lifting the ban from their edition. There was a #WeMissTurkey campaign online that has been attended by most wikipedians worldwide.--Joseph (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes it seem even more like navel gazing, tbh. While it's certainly big news for the WMF and Wikipedians, that doesn't show out-of-Wikipedia significance. We didn't post Framgate on ITN, for example. (Not that I don't think Wikipedia isn't a big deal in the real world; I have tried to put Wikipedia's founding on the January 15 OTD and was thereby introduced to the concept of navel gazing, but not everything Wikipedia is newsworthy.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Framgate is a valid comparison. It wasn't headline news in more than a dozen major English-language news outlets and it didn't require a major constitutional court decision on free speech rights. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per SCA. It was definitely a freedom of information issue that was resolved. OctaviusSlockpit (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as much as we take an interest in internet freedom, this is at heart a local domestic story, and there are likely to be many countries around the world that impose or lift restrictions on any website or another at any time or another. The fact that it's Wikipedia shouldn't sway an objective judgement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (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) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Masem. They make a compelling argument. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I think readers will find this of interest.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - this news has been all over the worlds media. also per established news sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per C&C. Substantial coverage in reliable sources & it was a notable ruling by their top constitutional courts that reversed the ban. Notability is established through coverage in sources, and coverage is not absent. The fact that the website involved is the one we're using is not a factor. To respond to Masem's hypothetical, of course I'd support the nomination if Wikipedia was swapped out with Google, as it's the #1 website in Turkey (and by extension the world), but I would not support if it was swapped out with the NYT because it doesn't even register in the top 50 websites by traffic. Wikipedia does, and it surpasses websites like Yahoo and Amazon. Combine that with the landmark court ruling on free speech online & the sea of English-language outlets covering it and I see no reason to oppose other than the fear of being accused of navel gazing Vanilla   Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Would like the article to be more expanded regarding the impact that unblocking Wikipedia will have on censorship in Turkey in general, connecting this to a wider context. Some reactions to the unblocking would also be useful: is there pushback from the government? IMO that would help with my concerns about navel gazing, and I'm willing to reconsider my position if the article is suitable expanded.  Spencer T• C 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely worth posting, this is not just about Wikipedia/Wikimedia issue, it is about freedom of information access in general. The Verge noted here that this is the "tightest Wikipedia ban in the world" as apparently it was the entire domain they blocked. Lifting the ban after this lengthy period is quite important, and yes more important than many niche topics that we post here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable and self-referential. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of absolutely no international significance. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please consider 331dot's reply to Amakuru. The fact that the story received significant coverage in English-language outlets is itself demonstration of notability outside of Turkey. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is about freedom of information and Wikipedia is accidentally the subject of the whole story. The block being lifted after it was ruled unconstitutional in a large country like Turkey is a major news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per navel gazing; it's one website in one country. Other websites and other counties is other stuff. ——  SN  54129  08:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to reply you that "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.168.126 (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Although there is rough consensus to post this, the article is not properly updated yet, as other editors have pointed out &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I returned to this nomination with a view to posting, but there have been no further updates in three days. Are people satisfied with the update to the target article? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Navel gazing. Remember when Turkey banned Twitter, then eventually lifted it because the ban was found illegal? Probably not. It had no significant effect, much like this probably won't, and it definitely wasn't worth posting on ITN. Unless we plan to give a blurb to when Turkey decides to kill Pornhub for a few months. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – This sort of topic has a short half-life. Unfortunately, this one is getting stale. Suggest close. (This user supported nom. on Jan. 16. but has stricken it as article is now stale.) – Sca (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per C&C. Either post it or close it. Jusdafax (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ban on a single website being lifted in a single country is not news worthy. Amir (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Second call for close whichever way it might be. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Third call for close again per Sca. Post it or don't. But it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * it would help if the editors calling for close would indicate if they support or oppose the nomination. As I noted above several days ago, there are lingering doubts on the quality of the update to the target article. I have checked periodically and no further improvements have been forthcoming. Therefore, based on this discussion, I am not confident to call a consensus to post, but neither would it be appropriate to close it. Therefore the default position is that the nomination stays open until it becomes stale &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose the post, but Sca and Ad Orientem support it. This is already getting stale and approaching the bottom of the list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I cancelled my support cuz it's stale. – Sca (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per C&C. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Trump impeachment

 * Support in the news, quality article being updated with "new, pertinent information", ticks the actual boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Nom makes the clear case for this inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This ITN Needs at least one reference to be nominated in ongoing. I oppose to posted this article to ongoing this week but i would support it for next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * since this is your nom, would you kindly copy/paste one of the myriad of high quality current references in the actual target article and add it to this nom? Also, thanks for nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't own noms. Anyone can edit the nomination (I notice WaltClip has already done so). Banedon (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is a highly consequential ongoing event subject to significant global media attention. Meets all criteria for inclusion. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , highly inconsequential from now on. Republicans are in majority and as they have stated, they are not convicting their president. So other than political drama, you are not getting anything  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support It would be better if he gets removed, but there's no reason we can't have both. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There are procedural steps ahead this week (starting with today's impeachment manager and sending the articles updates) and the trial itself is set to start on Tuesday. No reason not to post it now, though I wouldn't say anything if it isn't posted until Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support given that now the circus shifts from one house to the other. --M asem (t) 06:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose we should ignore minor inconsequential events such as the case moving from House to Senate. as per Business insider senate could bring it for hearing on 21 thereafter it will have to be seen when it gets next major updates. Also everyone knows Senate Republicans are not going to vote support, so Trump is not getting impeached convicted. So I cannot see the impact of this going forward.  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump is already impeached. The Senate will decide if there is enough to convict him on the terms of impeachment. Even if the Senate votes not to convict, that is still news - it would be the same as a major court case ending with an innocent verdict. --M asem (t) 07:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for correction. As a non American I may have wrongly used few terms. I am talking about the (1)"relevant impact" and (2) the schedule of major events. When is the senate going to vote? Not within a week. The impeachment news was already posted. As of now, all I see is, some signed papers were moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While this is one of the more major events in the process, there's also about a million steps in said process. Ongoing would be a better option in my opinion, but I wouldn't complain if this was posted. -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  07:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to ongoing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – A pretty obvious 'must' – even though ultimately the Demos won't prevail. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support It's back in the news and will be for a while. Ongoing is where this belongs until the trial wraps up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because it is a major political event, and since the trial has started according to the constitution, it is in the news, and should be until the senate delivers the verdict, officially closing the trial. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing only - Oppose blurb until the impeachment process is concluded. That is the time to post a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We now have a new article for the trial: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Can we update the link to this page? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated link &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but for next week I also want to replace the Impeachment of Donald Trump to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump with more specific in ongoing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that's likely the better target article. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support there are a billion people starving to death which I guess is not news but this needs to be on the front page even though everyone knows it`s a stacked deck 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It might have a political effect in November, though. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher Tolkien

 * Oppose for now too much of it is uncited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too soon for use of "fair use" image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless improved while the topic itself is worth it, the article itself isn't that great. Flalf (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is significantly improved This article is missing several citations and ISBNs. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - some work being done on this now. Hopefully there will still be time for this to go up if the improvements are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I've tidied up the article, adding citations and ISBNs for you guys. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - with thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still far too soon to be uploading a fair use image of this individual. It shouldn't be featured on the main page with the image in place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM is right (and was right to remove it from the article). Let's give this a bit of time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ivan Ustinov

 * Support and marking ready. Thorough coverage of subject; article fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 03:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support well-written article, as usual from the author. -Zanhe (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian government resigns

 * Oppose for now. The first bolded article choice has a very short three sentence update which provides no context for the resignation, it merely confirms that it happened.  The second bolded article contains even less; a single uncited 8-word sentence.  The rest of the article hasn't even been updated to reflect the changes.  Some significant work would need to be done on either article before this is ready to be posted to the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very little happens in the Russian government without Putin's OK. According to CNN the government resigned "after Putin proposed constitutional amendments that would weaken his successor and shift power to the prime minister and parliament". Sounds like he is getting ready to be PM again so he can keep running the show. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Putin is president, not prime minister, and "weaken his successor" (i.e. weaken the future president) means Putin is giving up power. Banedon (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Putin is referring to his successor as President. Putin is making the PM job more powerful so he can go back to it in 2024 when his presidential term is up. (He's done this once already) I'm sure the changes he wants will be conveniently timed to take effect in 2024. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If Putin were a Wikipedia editor, I'd say you were assuming bad faith. Banedon (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, important event, but articles may need improvement. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability but prefer that we have an article about the government resignation explaining in more detail what led up to it and what the immediate aftermath is (e.g. who will succeed him? we may not know today, but it would be good to have an article to put that information once the story develops further) Vanilla   Wizard  💙 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I would want to see in the blurb why. According to CNBC it was to allow for Putin to make sweeping constitutional changes. This might be one to give it a few hours or a day to know exactly where Putin is going with this. --M asem (t) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Masem. We need to focus more on Putin consolidating his own power in this. That's the main point of the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but not the current blurb - Let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. The blurb should reflect the actual nature of this power transition, which is to shift power back to Putin.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb--Abutalub (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Has anyone who wants to post this blurb done anything to fix the problems already noted in the text of the bolded articles? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. No news is so important as to override quality concerns on BLPs. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * which article is not up to scratch? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , none of them but I am more picky than most. Mikhail Mishustin is the worst of all. Putin has up to 8 [citation needed] tags. Medvedev has about 8 to 13 citations needed --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. There are some many blurbs proposed, I'm not sure which article we are discussing anymore. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it is a substantial change and Russia is a great power, but it's internal to Russia and neither of the two targets right now are directly related to the constitutional changes. Banedon (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Putin's machinations clearly extend beyond the borders of Russia. Not that that is required by ITN anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The story is the resignation of nothing but the Russian government and it's clearly in the news everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, per above. But both articles have cn tags, and it'd be preferable to have an article about the resignation. Davey2116 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not even the top story on BBC. Wait to see what the consequences are.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; Putin is the real power in Russia so Medvedev losing his position as Prime Minister means little in the grand scheme of things. However, news in coming days should tell us the significance of this move, and eventually we may blurb that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not significant news for me. Even President putin Announce his resignation, It is not really event important for me. A more important event like this need to include English-speaking country like US or UK. But this event only include single country for example Russia. Is this event related to religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not important" to you does not necessarily mean that it's not notable... we appeal to a worldwide audience. &#124; abequinnfourteen 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Putin is also the head of government of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an important development in geopolitics and is all over the news. It is important to cover on Wikipedia. BirdValiant (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly an event with impact. Unlike papers being moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea!! Take that, American editors!--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a major shake-up in one of the most important governments, and has been widely reported. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I still feel the provided blurbs are not getting the whole story, but then again, I don't think western sources know the whole story yet. Fingers are pointed at Putin, but there's nothing clear that Putin directed this or is jumping on it. If we really don't have an idea on why this happened, then AltII is the best to use to post. --M asem (t) 15:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – From what I've read Gospodin Putin appears to be maneuvering himself into a position of Nachalnik (boss) for Life. In the long term, this may be more significant than the U.S. House passing the impeachment articles, which unlike the surprising Russian changes was long expected anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support p  b  p  23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with a preference for alt blurb 2. A significant political development for Riussia, both as a change of government and in terms of adjacent constitutional changes. Nsk92 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there is now sufficient support to post this item, but we are waiting for improvements to the quality and updates on the relevant articles &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Second-day reading re Putin's aims: AP, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but i prefered Altblurb I and II, because it can change to political development in Russia. But i waiting for improvement of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.245.111.65 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Still in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment MSGJ and other admins, I have already updated these articles with the news, since MSGJ commented here. What is stopping it from getting posted ? Silence by admins is not helpful here.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked 'needs attn.' – Sca (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm here following a message on my talk page, and like MSGJ above I can see there's definitely support for this story in principle, but which of the proposed blurbs is favoured and if so, is the linked article of high enough quality? Looking at Dmitry Medvedev I see 12 citation-needed templates, as well as an orange tag on the "Education" section (dated to 2010) because it only has one line in it. Mikhail Mishustin has just two citation-neededs, although the section on the news story in question (him becoming PM) is quite short at the moment and is probably insufficient to represent this story. Vladimir Putin also has numerous citation-neededs and an "update section" orange tag. So, bottom line - I need guidance as to a definite blurb that is agreed upon, and an article that is of sufficient quality and updated suitably. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with Amakuru, rm attention needed.  Spencer T• C 22:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale & no longer in the news. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all the issues pointed by Amakuru above. I suggest Alt Blurb II as it is the most recent and includes all the updates. User:Spencer, MSGJ, User:Masem -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2 - with thanks to DBigXray for getting the Mikhail Mishustin article up to scratch. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it a picture of the old PM and not the new PM? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. A picture of the new PM is more actual content. TarzanASG (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will swap the pic as soon as it is protected on Commons (in a few minutes). Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rocky Johnson

 * Oppose Work needed on referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced for BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the existing parts were cited and corrected, the majority of his career would be conspicuously absent. We can host a reflection of WWE revisionist history, but shouldn't promote it. Even a non-fan can look at the Championships section and wonder what the hell he did to deserve such recognition. Sadly, reliable sources continue to tow the company line, and he's doomed to be remembered as half of an objectively mediocre "black team" instead of a guy who got over everywhere with everyone. For now, I mean; there'll be a docudrama someday, much too late for RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby Brown

 * Support Marking ready. Adequate coverage of subject and referenced.  Spencer T• C 22:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Maybe you should disambiguate that its the footballer that passed away. Yall scared the fuck out of me for a second making me think the R&B singer from New Edition died. Thankfully, he didnt, but that scared the hell out of me for a second. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liang Jun (tractor driver)

 * Support well referenced from BBC despite short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Microsoft ends support of Windows 7

 * Oppose While I used to have Win 7 (and still use Classic Shell to avoid the outlandish menu design of Win 10), this was expectable sooner or later, just like with previous MS versions superseded by newer ones. Besides, Win 7 will remain functionable without security updates (albeit more vulnerable), just like previous versions. Nostalgia isn't that easy to kill. Brandmeistertalk  20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. Routine business news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Products get discontinued all the time, and Microsoft has been known for buggy software since at least Internet Explorer 6 (I know it's just a meme/running gag that derives a lot from its dominant position, but still). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Appreciate the good faith test here. But really, "McDonald's ends support for the Happy Meal"? Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is more an argument that the end of Win7 support will increase security risks due to the large # of computers still running the system. McD killing the Happy Meal is nowhere close a major security problem. I normally agree that the end of a product line is rarely ITN news, but the ubiquity of computers is important here. --M asem (t) 02:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * With that argument I get the feeling that this would violate at least the spirit of WP:NOT (although I can't put my finger on the exact shortcut - NOTGUIDE, maybe?); while it would be useful as a public service, doing so is not Wikipedia's job. This feels like an issue of PC World rather than a genuinely newsworthy event such as scientists dating the oldest solid material on Earth, for example. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pointlessly I know but there is still significant usage of Win7/2k8 so the end of security updates has a good deal of risk. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That millions of users have not purchased a newer version of a product, putting themselves at risk of viruses/hacking, doesn't seem all that unusual.  If Windows itself was being discontinued, that would merit posting, but Windows still exists. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the number of people using Windows 7 probably exceeds the population of quite a few countries. If we post news related to those countries, why wouldn't we post this? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Sounds like big news to me.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Martinevans. I must have missed the blurb we ran last year when MS ended all support for XP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Last I saw was here. Though it does not seem like it was actually posted for some reason. PackMecEng (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, publicity stunt by filthy megacorporation. It is suspected that they will continue support for some time. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Important new for the second most used OS currently out there. PackMecEng (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose all the speculation as to what might happen now is pure WP:CRYSTAL so post when it becomes an actual issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Martinevans, TRM. It had a 10-year run. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hong Kong protests

 * Oppose It may be ongoing, and the subarticles may be getting updates, but it has lost its place as a widely covered event that would make it appropriate for ongoing. It's like the impeaching stuff - its clearly still ongoing but the noise in the media right now about it is only a buzz and not major, so it would not be appropriate to be listed at Ongoing. We're looking for ongoing events where there are significant changes or updates on a near-daily basis that get broad media coverage. --M asem (t) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the last significant protest was Jan 1 with about 60k people, and oppose to featuring a "List of" article on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is a stronger case to post the protests in Iran than in Hong Kong; at least the former is in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the last 50 edits, going back to 10 Jan (4 days), the only new material relates to events in November and October, a couple of sentences about protestors fleeing to Taiwan, and accusations of CIA involvement. The alternative "List of..." article is very much police blotter. I think the best route for this event is to wait for a genuinely notable event as a blurb.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. There does not appear to be enough recently added material, nor evidence that this is an article which is receiving regular updates, to consider this for ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per Masem. I feel as though this article is either nominated to be added to Ongoing or removed from Ongoing every other week... ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Oldest solid material on Earth discovered

 * Comment Just noting this is based on a paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences so peer-review is there. --M asem (t) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. The article has not been updated. Indeed as far as I can tell it has not been edited in months, so we don't really have anything on the subject of the blurb in the linked article. Also there are some fairly significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support contingent on article update. Strong science news but, as Ad Orientem says, the update needs to be there.--WaltCip (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would hate to see this miss out because nobody could be bothered updating the article. I'll try to myself, but anyone else could too, rather than pushing this item away while saying it hasn't been updated. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Murchison meteorite has now been updated with this news. I can't see what else is needed before posting it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb (note that I have modified and truncated the many blurbs in the original nomination). Article is well written and updated. I chose to link pre-solar grains in the blurb instead of stardust, because that would be the most accurate description of the material (although the stardust page is much better overall). Exciting and fascinating find, and the article about the meterorite itself and actually a good portal to other encyclopedic subjects.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting and newsworthy. Article about subject seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when updated, as there is one-sentence update at the moment. --Tone 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, what do you want to see, and what's stopping you putting it there? This nomination isn't owned by anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tone; the update is not sufficient yet. I heard on the news some details about how they extracted the particles from the meteorite - that would be appropriate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So why aren't you adding it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, why aren't you?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't me who "heard (it) on the news". HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not keen on the wording "older than 5-7 billion years old". Either it is "older than 5 billion years old", or it is simply "5-7 billion years old". The article says "7 billion years old" so I'm not sure where the 5 came from? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for original blurb but Support for Altblurb I and II this sentence needs to update as well for many reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.11 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is big news. Alternative blurb preferred.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb that contains the word "presolar" or something to that effect so people don't get confused that it's older than the Earth. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - agree with those in support above - also - relevant refs per my edit on "Oldest dated rocks"; related edit on "Murchison meteorite" and related edit on "2020 in science" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Murchison meteorite article only has the announcement in the lede and not the body, and the article on presolar grains needs more references. Stephen 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment - ✅ - relevant text and refs have now been added to the body of the "Murchison meteorite" article - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Assume next week we'll have an article titled "Youngest solid material on Earth discovered." – Sca (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jean Delumeau

 * Looks good to post &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Would like to see more coverage about what he wrote about. Right now it reads like a resume/CV in prose format listing out his various positions and awards.  Spencer T• C 02:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship

 * Oppose as in past years. Gridiron football has a very limited appeal (principally NA), and we already cover the most significant event in that (The Super Bowl). Additionally, college footage is equivalent to minor league/amateur sports, which we should not post unless it is like the Boat Race, the most significant event in that sport. Additionally, at least with the NCAA basketball, there's a more proper tourney with multiple brackets and more proper competition, compared to just taking the top 4 coach-ranked teams and doing a short 2 round playoff. --M asem (t) 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Tigers. From Deep South states named after major kings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – I think putting an event restricted to two measly schools above a competition, drawn from more than 100 schools that attract tens of thousands of fans to games, is ridiculous. This championship is the culmination of a major league even if the NCAA does not like to admit it for their own greedy reasons. The fan base is huge. The news coverage astronomical. Why should we kowtow to the same bias. College Football has different rules. We have 3 events for rugby league and 3 events for rugby union. Why, pray tell, is gridiron football limited to a single event? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because posting multiple events for a single sport in a single country would be overkill? Would you support including the AFL Grand Final and the VFL Grand Final at ITN? The latter is the major feeder competition for another single nation sport. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If their fan base was as big and their notability as high, then yes. "The 2019 championship drew 25.28 million viewers". Compare that to 2.419 million for AFL Grand Final and likely even fewer for the VFL Grand Final. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An approach of looking at pure numbers would be a guaranteed way of having US events dominate ITN. Do we want that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would probably work the other way. Any English Premiership football match broadcasted internationally would exceed 25m easily.  Indeed, Manchester United v Wolves tonight in the FA Cup will do. This being posted has opened the gates to a flood of other non ITNR nominations (just in the UK - FA Cup Final, Carabao Cup Final, Championship play-off final, Cricket County Championship, T20 final, Rugby Union Premiership, etc etc) which will probably get rejected by American editors and thus prove our systemic bias. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Too much has been said in the past so it's annoying to repeat it once again. Those trying to draw an argument from the fact that we regularly post the Boat Race should better question its WP:ITN/R status if they feel so inclined.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, who puts it well. -- Tavix ( talk ) 09:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A case can be made that more people follow collegiate football than the NFL; the largest capacity stadiums in the US are mostly college stadiums (Michigan Stadium). This is a big deal for many people. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Masem, and further; the reason the NCAA game gets posted is because basketball is a far more global sport and therefore it gets more international coverage.  Here is the UK I can find BBC stories about most year's NCAA finals, but if I search the site for college football, all I get is stories about Donald Trump feeding people burgers at the White House after last year's game - nothing about the actual games. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Here in England, our most popular sport is association football. The Premier League is in WP:ITN/R, but we don't post any other English competitions, such as the FA Cup - still in itself a big deal domestically. In fact only two other national leagues, those of Spain and Germany, are in that list. As such, and per HiLo above, given that we already post the top competition in US American football, it would be overkill to post a second one. I get that this is a big deal in America, nobody's denying that, but so are many other things within their respective countries and we don't want to inundate ITN with endless sporting events. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem & the others. This is an old issue. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is quite good, and reliable news sources are covering the story at a significant level. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Not that I think consensus will develop in favor of posting, but I think C&C makes good points here. To say this should not be posted because it is a college sport is directly contradicted by the fact that we post NCAA basketball tourney results. There is only one other American football related event we post, so two doesn't seem like overkill. Additionally, to say that this is only important in North America directly contradicts ITN's general criteria: arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I find posts like that unhelpful. Nobody is saying this should not be posted because it is a college sport, so that's a straw man argument. And I have already addressed the issue of two items on the one sport from one country. Would you support two items on Australian football every year? Even as an Australian, I wouldn't. So please don't both ignore what others have said, and then write as if they've said something they haven't. That's just confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * actually, I would be very happy to see both the AFL and the AFLW Grand Finals make ITN.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A blind chicken actually found the feed :O - and I agree, ITN should not be a confrontational place or a place to let personal preferences cloud what is and is not appropriate for the front page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, Masem references this being a college sport (coupled with other reasons) as a reason to not post: college footage is equivalent to minor league/amateur sports, which we should not post unless it is like the Boat Race, the most significant event in that sport. Second, I was responding to the claim that Gridiron football has a very limited appeal (principally NA), again by Masem (nothing against you here Masem!), when I brought up the quote regarding the fact that something appealing only to a certain area was not a reason to oppose posting. I was directly responding to points someone gave as to not post this - one that others agreed with. Finally, stating Would you support two items on Australian football every year? is not a valid way to address the issue of two sports for one country. We could spend endless days asking hypotheticals on ITN noms. I though my post was indeed helpful, and I put time into it, making sure I didn't both ignore what others have said, and then write as if they've said something they haven't. I try very hard not to be confrontational on here, but I feel I must stand up for myself in this case. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument related to "gridiron only of interest to NA" is not that we should never cover gridiron football, but that we should respect the fact that other sports have much more dominate/global interest like association football, rugby, and cricket, so they reasonably have multiple events that we include as ITRN, while a single-nation sport like gridiron, even if having some of the highest viewership overall, should still be limited in how much we cover it. Which is reasonable with the Super Bowl, but not the non-professional events like this game. --M asem (t) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. On that basis, you could even argue that events like the Championship play-off final, despite being at second-tier level, should be posted here, given that it's a one-off game with an attendance of 85,000, a worldwide audience in the many millions, and covered in multinational media.  It's a slippery slope, and I don't think we'd do ourselves any favours by proceeding down it.  Consider also that many popular sports (i.e. Kabaddi) don't have any ITN/R entries... Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support In the news and a quality article. I'm not sure why we have to restrict ourselves to one article per sport per country. I will support this year's FA Cup Final being posted if it is of sufficient quality.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting and linking to a good quality article. We can certainly afford to less picky about "significance" on ITN &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; massive event that certainly deserves its place; the national championship draws millions of fans and is covered by loads of independent, reliable newsmedia sources. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Consensus (while not unanimous) favors posting; article is in good shape.  Spencer T• C 05:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm wondering if the first link should be American football and not gridiron, considering that is the more relevant article. (it's also a GA if that has any bearing). —  G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 05:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed It's the American (more popular) version.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose & Pull, not significant enough to merit a blurb. Doesn't rise to the level of ITN. 39.50.160.68 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go into more detail about your reason and what the "level of ITN" is. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say pull, but see my comment above in reply to HiLo48. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, but let's not shut the door AFTER adding 6 rugby, 4 cricket and who knows how many footie games. A common sense solution would be to pick ONE event from each code (we can debate how distinct a code has to be, but why not post Kabaddi if the quality is there?). We already have all changes to heads of state as ITNR, even though everyone knows some are more significant than others. The Boat Race is fine. NBA Finals are in, "FIBA" (whatever the hell that is) is out. FIFA WC is in, Premier League is out. British Open in, Masters out. Snooker, Darts, Sand-castle building... they all get one, but they still have to have the quality.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - there is no consensus to post this. Please pull immediately. Realistically, for this to be considered it should be debated for an entry at WP:ITN/R, that's the place to determine if recurring events are posted, with a proper debate, not through local consensus year-by-year. I don't see anything about this year's event that elevates it above other years and would create an exception.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. It used to be everything was sports, sports, sports. Now we have a lot of politics, diplomatic intrigue, and tragedy. There is nothing wrong with letting a few more sports slip through. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but now this'll come back again next year and everyone will point to this posting and say that's a precedent. So it ends up in ITN/R by the back door. That's not how it's supposed to work. You might be right that this event is notable enough, but it should be ascertained by the correct means, not through this razor-thin "consensus" at an individual year's discussion, with almost as many opposes as supports. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is how it is supposed to work. ITN/R is for recurring items that have had a track record of being posted - it would be nonsensical to have a discussion about an event that has never been posted in the regular way.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero requirement that a recurring event needs to be listed at ITN/R to be able to qualify as an ITN/C candidate, as long as the ITNC is focused only on the single instance of that recurring event. --M asem (t) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep listed. Consensus here is clear and I'm happy and admin finally had the balls to post this. Let's all move on and focus on getting new items on the page rather than whinging this made it.  Calidum   15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep listed per Calidum Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protests

 * Oppose Some cleanup is needed, to be sure, but I see nothing demanding immediate removal. Going through the references section, I can see new information has been added up through today, with numerous sources being added yesterday, over half a dozen, with similar numbers of sources to each of the preceding days. This is still an actively-edited article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The claim that "updates for the article are sporadic and inadequate" is simply not true. This is still an actively-edited article, and an ongoing event. Please see these links from today  -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still seeing substantive additions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The issue is still making headlines in India. More updates are expected in coming days. Abishe (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this happens every time we try to remove something from ongoing. It doesn't matter if the story is still in the news, the article updates are what matters and ref improvements are not "new, pertinent information". At least Jayron read the criteria even if we disagree. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Did you raise this concern on the article talk page ? If not, then may be next time you should raise it on the talk page first. That may prevent "this" from happening every time you try to remove something from ongoing. Update:I have notified the article contributors about this thread.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I read them. I'm pretty sure I wrote them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All I care about is the ITN box, that's it. If you don't want your pet project removed, just keep it updated per WP:ITN. Thanks for the WP:CANVAS we may as well snow close this nom now under an avalanche of opposes not informed by WP:ITN and I'll try again next week. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia improvement your priority or removing perfectly valid items from ITN using bureaucracy ? If it is the latter, then you should seriously review your tactics, or else all such efforts will continue having the same fate, that it gets every time you try to remove something from ongoing. The comments above dont give an impression that there was much support for your proposal anyway. Finally, I think it is about time for you to familiarize yourself with Canvassing before you wrongly accuse someone of WP:CANVAS again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - As per reasons given by others above. --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "sporadic and inadequate" is a point of view. This is a ongoing protest and will continue for days to come, first Supreme Court hearing itself on 22nd. Some protest are going on continuously, various sections are still to be added. I can see updates on 13th Jan. I don't see any reason for such removal. Dey subrata (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pervez Musharraf

 * Support This is quite important as the judgement has been proven and declared invalid. Abishe (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Or perhaps the death sentence shouldn't have been posted in the first place and two wrongs don't make a right? Not saying that for sure, just playing devil's advocate. I will say that the entirety of the update as of this moment is "On 13 January 2020, the Lahore High Court annulled the death sentence.[22]" and since that doesn't even say why the annulled it, it's an insufficient update. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review. I have added more updates  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per Muboshgu, was as insignificant then as now (except maybe for headline catching news). Gotitbro (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Trust the system we have for determining ITN-worthiness. We usually post major court case convictions/sentencing (which we did) and Supreme Court decisions. If this is appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, we should post the decision of that court as it sets major precedent. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. So I'm not clear on this.  Was his conviction tossed out, or just his death sentence?  He was unlikely to be put to death(he is in another country and dying due to illness) but if his conviction was tossed, that seems notable to me. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , both his conviction and his death sentence was tossed out. and the special court that gave the previous verdict was judged as illegal.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of course the sentence was never going to be carried out, which was why it was silly of us to play along with the earlier publicity stunt. Let's not compound that error by acting like this is a shocking new development.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If the sentencing by a lower court was assessed important enough to post, so should be the exoneration by a superior High Court (which holds higher importance). The news sites have all published it and rightly so. (see CNN, New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, SCMP, Reuters, CBC, Deutsche Welle, ABC.au, Al Jazeera) Why are we posting the negative coverage but hiding the rectification of an illegal judgement. We are not here for hitjobs and we should be careful in not appearing as one. This is both unfair and hypocritical at a whole another level. Pinging participants of previous discussion. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it was not a full-bench decision, and it will be challenged in Supreme Court who's special bench gave decision. We can't post every development. Störm   (talk)  11:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote: A three-member full bench of the LHC, ..., delivered the unanimous verdict. User:Störm Please check. Also this is the final judgement of the high court. The case may never go to Supreme Court, moreover we should not be guessing the future but assessing the present.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – In practical terms lacks significance. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The death sentence should've never been posted in the first place. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So ex-heads of state being sentenced to death, especially for actions related to their time in office, should not be posted? 331dot (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Taal Volcano

 * Comment that gigantic "The 1754 eruption" section needs to be trimmed before this goes anywhere near the main page. Few missing refs. Nolo on significance. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but article should also link to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption instead. ITSQUIETUPTOWN  .public  • talk 03:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: But the blurb needs to updated as well because can cause many people killed. This link should be linked to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption instead the Taal volcano itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.20 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for ITN. Article of eruption seems updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Altblurb2 added, which links to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with Altblurb2 linking to 2020 eruption Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment just wanted to say that this is the first time I've seen a GIF in ITN. Pretty cool! --Varavour (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Same, wow. Made me do a double-take. It's actually very visually pleasant seeing GIFs on the usually static front page. Sleath56 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Joseph Muscat and Robert Abela

 * Article needs updating &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 appears ready now and should be how we frame this item. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  - Target article (Abela) has a cn-tag in the first line, though it is only for his birthday. Also the "Honours" section is completely blank ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now per changes. Thanks Xwejnusgozo! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I also added a citation for the birthday, addressing the concerns of . --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment CE'd the blurb. As a change in PM without a general election, the blurb should include notability criteria, in this case a link to the protests.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * alt2. More comments needed on whether to include Daphne Caruana Galizia &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of ALT2. I don't think we need any extra detail in the blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting: oppose ALT1, ALT2, support original or ALT3 (original would need fixing from protests to protests to avoid the redirect and retain the pipe). The name of the person replacing Muscat is much less significant than the fact that the executive head of a European Union member state has resigned because people close to him are on trial for the murder of a journalist, and there have been massive street protests and suspicions that he was involved in some way in the murder (for a prime minister to even just "give the green light" to a murder is surely a big news item). Boud (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ALT2 could be interpreted as a whitewash in comparison to recent news headlines about this event: Malta gets new prime minister amid outrage over journalist murder Al Jazeera English Malta gets new PM after reporter murder outcry The Standard (Kenya) Maltese PM steps down amid public pressure over murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia Press Gazette Malta's new PM has only days to prove himself, says Andrew Caruana Galizia The Guardian (Andrew Caruana Galizia is the son of Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was assassinated). Could we please update correct to ALT3 unless there are objections? Boud (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (clarify comment Boud (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC))
 * Sorry. We are not a news service. None of those headlines (which sound somewhat sensational) were posted here at ITN. Any change to the ALT3 would require consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not a news service, agreed; but also, we don't (shouldn't) present information in a misleading way. Omitting context is one way of being misleading. I've struck the word "update" in my comment because that's misleading; I meant "correct". (Parenthesis: The protests article gives plenty of sourced evidence of the anger described in the headlines, though "anger" would be more neutral than "outcry" or "outrage" - agreed there). I don't see any arguments above in favour of removing the links to the protests article and the Caruana Galizia, apart from Amakuru's post-posting "I don't think" comment. In terms of consensus, 130.233.2.197 was in favour of including the protests article. I don't see any arguments presented here against ALT3. Boud (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did another strike in my comment to clarify that the newness of the headlines is irrelevant: what is relevant is that they describe the event in context, which we would do with ALT3 (or the original blurb). Boud (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this needs to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS. As an uninvolved admin, absent some serious breach of policy/guidelines, it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally make substantive changes to the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough that you want to remain an uninvolved admin. - Are there any objections to shifting to ALT3? Boud (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if we begin with Abela. I don't mind more context but the primary focus should be the appointment of a new head of government not the exit of the old. "​Robert Abela becomes Prime Minister of Malta following the resignation of Joseph Muscat in the wake of ...." --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Blurb updated. There seems to be a rough consensus to include details on the protest, but per C&C the focus should still be on the new PM, so I've amended it to the current wording of ALT0. Hope this is OK with everyone. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks reasonable to me - thanks! Boud (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Garnett

 * Comment I've finished tidying up cites, think it's good to go now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes I agree this looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kazuo Sakurada

 * More reliable source needed for his death. Also, can the personal life section be expanded a bit? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a reliable source, the most reliable source of all pro wrestling news sites. I have not found anything on his personal life supported by reliable sources, only blogs and forum posts. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Slam Sports
 * Uproxx
 * Sorry I'm not familiar with wrestling sources. I guess I was asking for mainstream sources, but if you say these are reliable then I'll accept that &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No opposition, so &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulo Gonçalves

 * Can you help to copyedit "During the 2020 edition, the engine started in the third stage, and it was even announced its withdrawal" because I have no idea what this means? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. ミラP 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further comments. This is looking good now, perhaps too much reliance on a single source though &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - per MSGJ above, needs a few more diverse sources. I think they're out there as his death is in the English-language news too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added CNN and Guardian refs. ミラP 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD - thanks for the updated refs, and I've added a couple more myself so it's good to do now. Posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sir Roger Scruton

 * Weakest oppose the "selected" works section is unreferenced, the rest is probably GA-level. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose there's also no prose update on his death, no mention of his 6-month battle with cancer. I'm finding sources for the works, but finding a single (e.g. British Library) listing for them all may be the way to go. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Support article in great shape, updated, very influential man in the UK in general and in world political philosophy. Has an SPS for his works in the main bio but since a google shows them very easily as his with a variety of other sources, seems fine, should be good to post. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @ & : I think the issues you raised have been addressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Updated and well referenced. If the works section is still a problem, it could be blanked except for the template, as there exists a sub-article for his works that readers could be directed towards. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: As arguably the greatest philosopher of our age, his passing should be marked. He was far more than a thinker and writer though:  in Eastern Europe his work ensured that after Communism fell, there was an intellectual class ready to guide those lands into the new landscape without which there would have been anarchy. Hogweard (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Stan Kirsch

 * Oppose needs further referencing, marked as such. (Also, it's not a stub, more like a start class, updated accordingly). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: La Parka II

 * Support - Article looks fairly well referenced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 04:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per the above. And remember kids, don't try this at home...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted and updated) Qaboos bin Said al Said

 * Note I have updated the nomination to reflect that this event is covered by ITNR as it involves a change in head of state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems up to scratch. The death of the undisputedly most powerful figure in a country is certainly worth a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support at least RD, indifferent towards blurb looks good enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I personally see no reason as to why not. Article is ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No comment on article quality. Support a blurb especially when his successor is agreed/named in up to 3 days or so time, a combined blurb on the succession would be ITNR anyway. -- KTC (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - RD is a no-brainer to me. I think he may "deserve" a blurb.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The blurb can be updated when the successor is announced. Article is decent shape with referencing and is being updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Notable and article looks good.Johndavies837 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Is Qaboos bin Said al Said's religion is Islam and related to Saudi? I can support it if he refers his nationality because it is interested to me. Otherwise, I Support it for article's quality and it is notable. Separate article needs to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.69.50.110 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Why is his religion relevant? Johndavies837 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The tense used in the blurb is unusual; I think we generally use present tense (i.e. "dies" or "dies aged 79"). EternalNomad (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've also restructured the original blurb. El_C 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Possible to have his picture as well? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support even aside from his status as the longest-serving ruler of the Arab world, he was the incumbent monarch of a sovereign country, so a blurb is appropriate. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 03:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we add the new ruler: Haitham bin Tariq Al Said on the blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, but that article is still rather short. Hopefully it will be expanded now. What wording would you suggest? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See alt blurb above.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The ascension of Haitham bin Tariq Al Said is ITN/R, the death of the sitting head is not. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support succession update Haitham readable prose size is currently 1457, which I'll IAR for my personal requirement of matching DYK min requirememt of 1500.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb updated to alt to include succession. -- KTC (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted and reworded) 2020 Taiwanese presidential election

 *  Oppose  for now. More prose is needed regarding the results of the election. Currently there is just one sentence stating who won. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good now! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 04:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the alternative blurb. Concise and factual, and it is a notable news item. - Indefensible (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support important news. Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For as long as I have been stalking ITN/C, we have required a summary-in-prose for the §Results. That section should have at least 3–4 sentences summarizing the outcome and citing sources like . --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * CnC I have added a basic 3 line summary there. Others are welcome to expand.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support added Alt blurb II -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 and marking ready; I added some additional information to the results section so it meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the legislative election should be mentioned as well since it is less predicted. Ythlev (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it should be mentioned, the related article needs some work before it's ready for the main page. Once it's updated, we can request an update to this blurb. A proposed blurb that would include it would be: "Tsai Ing-Wen (pictured) is re-elected President of Taiwan, and her party retains its majority in the Legislative Yuan." Otherwise, alt blurb I should be ready to go. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amakuru, can someone post the credits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose and pull Taiwan is not a country --LaserLegs (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether Taiwan is a country or not does not take away from the existence of this election, nor its newsworthiness or effect on world affairs. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be of consideration if the nomination was nodded through on the basis of the WP:ITN/R for national elections. It doesn't look it was though, and I agree that as a de facto independent state and a significant player on the global stage, this is clearly worthy of posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To pile on, I agree with both 331dot and Amakuru. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion on wording of blurb

 * Tsai Ing-wen Her article says she is President of the Republic of China, but our blurb is to "President of Taiwan". Seems 1) inconsistent 2) weird not to link to the office if we are going to capitalize "President".—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made "President" lowercase, and also added an "as" to the sentence, unless you think that's wrong. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's still the issue of whether we had a standard for national politics whether it's referred to as Republic of China (as her bio uses) or Taiwan.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "In Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) is re-elected as President of the Republic of China." (also serves as an educating point of Taiwan/Republic of China)—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to tell President Tsai that she isn't President of Taiwan, as her own press office doesn't appear to be aware. (Pretty much the entire platform of the DPP is that Taiwan is an independent country and the "Republic of China" symbolism should be dropped. Wikipedia insisting on using Kuomintang terminology is roughly on a par with insisting we call Gerry Adams British.) &#8209; Iridescent 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "President of Taiwan" does not appear anywhere in the link you provided. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to simply say "President of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" as is represented on official Taiwanese documents. The current construction appears amateur and partisan - like the work of someone who has not done their homework on Taiwan. Another suggestion entirely is to simply say she won the "2020 Taiwanese presidential elections" without actually specifying the office. But anything is better than this current line. And in response to the above, Tsai herself, in her victory speech, repeatedly makes reference to "Repubilc of China -- Taiwan". So while it is true that the DPP wants to drop "Chinese" symbols, she has not herself made this a priority, not nearly to the same extent as Chen Shui-bian anyway, and also pays lip service to the designation "ROC-Taiwan" during the debates and policy presentations. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The link you provided says "Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan)" at the very top. My only preference is that Main Page is consistent with the linked articles, however that is achieved. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose any change. The country is commonly called Taiwan, not the Republic of China (which may be a confusing term for many people if they're not familliar with the ROC/PRC distinction). It is unnecessary to mention that term at all in the blurb, and it certainly isn't an error. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * De-capping can be interpreted as a form demoting importance. We are allowing POV to creep in, even if unintentional. We should use her official title or find a way to capitalize President as suggested below by Bagumba. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually de-capping is simply part of Wikipedia guidelines, as indicated at MOS:JOBTITLES so it's not a question of demoting importance. We do it across the board, including at List of presidents of the United States and all related titles which use "president" as a common noun rather than as part of a title. And furthermore, we have long-standing convention of calling that country Taiwan. The linked event itself is titled the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. I get that there are complications around the naming of the country and the political status re China, but really the current wording is exactly how we'd style any other presidential re-election. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in this case, we have made two decisions to get here. First, we chose to ignore her official title because, I assume, we think the reader is stupid. Second, we chose to decap president even though it is not modified (i.e. preceded by "the") and not plural. Her title is "President of the Republic of China" and we should say so. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that small p for smaller countries is a common occurrence at ITN. See Main Page history/2013 March 17 where Xi Jinping got a capital P even when modified by "new". Sure MOS was different then but my point is still the same. We bend over backwards to capitalize major nations' titles but we can't be bother to make a few changes to the blurb to make sure we treat smaller countries with the same respect. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another alternative that can be considered that could be workable to all parties is "Tsai Ing-wen wins the 2020 presidential elections in Taiwan." Neutral, accurate, concise. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or: "Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) wins the Taiwanese presidential election and is re-elected president", so as to follow the wording of the article title and be able to use "president" unqualified. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Another error Considering she was already president (and got re-elected), she needs to be introduced as "President Tsai Ing-wen is ..."—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "In Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) is re-elected." this avoids the whole Republic of China/Taiwan conundrum. There is no issue referring to the geographical location as "Taiwan".—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is a good idea. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would work.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of this proposal also. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Blurb amended - per my comments above, I don't really think this is necessary but since people are unhappy, there seems to be a rough consensus, and it's not the end of the world, I have amended the blurb with Bagumba's suggestion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) Quetta bombing

 * Thanks for your work on this article, but it is now older than the oldest item currently on ITN, so according to the rules it will not be posted. If there are further developments, please nominate again &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Dauner

 * Support' - article is in reasonable shape, well-cited, and has the fundamental info. Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil Peart

 * Suggest blurb: widely considered the greatest drummer (or at least routinely in the top 3) of all time. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not a blurb in any sense, and article isn't ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a blurb. He retired on news he had cancer, this was not a surprised. If he died in the midst of touring as a surprise to everyone, maybe. But this is not like Prince or David Bowie in terms of musicians. --M asem (t) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He retired because of arthritis not long ago, his death was still completely unexpected. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's terribly sad but it's not a blurb. If Ringo Starr or even Roger Taylor died right now, we wouldn't blurb him.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ringo I would think would get a blurb—his entire career may have been through the good fortune of attaching himself to other people's coat-tails, but his level of fame is such that even if his death were completely expected after a long illness, I'd still expect it to get the 'full blacked-out front page, souvenir supplement, and "what he meant to me" by z-list celebs' treatment in every paper. With the exception of Trump and QEII his name is almost certainly better known globally than that of any current head of state. This guy, however, is not Ringo; if I stopped a hundred people in the street and asked "who was the drummer in Rush?" I doubt a single one could name him. &#8209; Iridescent 21:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He's very important probably to a group of people of a certain age and type - eg people that likely were in college in the 70s and 80s when Rush was the big thing - but not as much a global household name as Ringo, or Prince, or Bowie. This to me is an issue around the same problem that led to us posting Carrie Fisher as a blurb which we retroactively saw as a mistake - an "important" person to a certain clique but not really that important in the long run. --M asem (t) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ringo should never get a blurb, I'm not sure how he would ever meet the "transformative" criterion. Even Thomas would agree with me.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a part of a package—it's "four lads who shook the world", not "three lads who shook the world and their ugly mate". When the time comes I'll be very surprised if he doesn't get overwhelming support for a blurb; unless the Third World War starts on the same day it will be guaranteed the be the lead story in every news outlet in the world. Plus, it's probably one of the best BLP articles on Wikipedia (admittedly assisted by the fact that he hasn't done anything of note for 50 years so it doesn't need much updating), so it will be an opportunity to showcase it. &#8209; Iridescent 22:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait and see. Unless there's recognition for his work as The Fat Controller, I'm not interested. As we all know, Paul said Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the band.  His work isn't transformative, it's just Sideshow Bob-esque.  I personally love some of the Beatles' anthology work where Ringo expresses instrumentally. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality - this is apparently a "good article", but it's not really very good because large parts of it lack citations. Also oppose blurb, as noted above he's famous but not that famous. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite being a good article it has numerous sourcing issues. If these aren’t fixed soon and his page isn’t featured on RD this could also be a candidate for GA demotion. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I plan to work on sourcing and fixing some of the worse bits. Not worth a blurb, but a listing will suffice. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - This isn't just some drummer. This is Neil Peart. Come on. WaltCip (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb if it's not obvious from my comments above. Quite aside from the quality issue, I've never heard of him and I'd be willing to bet that I don't know a single person who's heard of him, and I've lived my life surrounded by muso types. &#8209; Iridescent 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Never heard of him, and rock music is one of my interests. P-K3 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, ok --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Lyricist and drummer of the one of the greatest rock bands of all time. CoatCheck (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb while Peart is widely recognized by anyone with a clue as a well known and influential drummer, my subjective criteria for a blurb is the death/funeral becoming a news item on it's own (think Michael Jackson) and not just an obit. We can bump it to a blurb in a day or two if it's still making headlines. Oppose RD for now because of the CN tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD: Highly notable drummer. There's thousands of rock drummers in the world, but not too many are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Order of Canada. Article has 91 sources, how many does it need, 100? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you’re supporting RD, then notability is not relevant. Secondly, it’s not the number of sources overall, but the number of statements that are unsourced.P-K3 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Regretful oppose RD on article quality alone. I was quite surprised that this wasn't already up, but looking at the article I can see many uncited paragraphs. Can switch to support once this gets cleaned up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD - definitely RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not RD ready - its 90% there, but there are several CN tags, and a fair number of sections very light on reference that need it, like "Playing style reinvention". It's close, but not close enough. --M asem (t) 01:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD' - His influence on rock was big enough to justify blurb, don't see why people don't want blurb. Doomgloom2678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD only when citations are improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD' Very important drummer, musician.  And a writer to boot.  91 sources, and you are quibbling over the few paragraphs that need additional citation?  Again, a deliberately perverse result.  Not unlike when Dr. John died. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes we are quibbling about missing citations. Material highlighted on WP's main page should be showing our best work. Lots of missing citations is not our best work. --M asem (t) 15:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It has 100 sources. Is it the "best article in Wikipedia?"  No.  But it is a very good article, if not a perfect one.  Perfection is not a requirement for inclusion on the main page.
 * USA Today's writers compared him favorably to other top shelf rock drummers.He was “considered one of the best rock drummers of all time, alongside John Bonham of Led Zeppelin; Ringo Starr of The Beatles; Keith Moon of The Who; Ginger Baker of Cream and Stewart Copeland of The Police.”   As Variety wrote: "[w]idely considered one of the most innovative drummers in rock history, Peart was famous for his state-of-the-art drum kits — more than 40 different drums were not out of the norm — precise playing style and on stage showmanship.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of references mean nothing. Its where there are large swathes of text including non-obvious statements that are not sourced. We aren't asking for perfection, but an article marked GA with this many CNs has clearly fallen out of the quality that it had been when it was at GA. That GA was back in 2008, so clearly 12 years of time have left the article in a poor state to not be yet postable. --M asem (t) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If I wasn't using a mobile phone, I'd simply comment out the unreferenced statements. Hopefully one of the above supporters can. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Notable drummer but we shouldn't just give a blurb to everyone. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready no more CN tags, no more orange tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: John Crosbie

 * Weak support Generally in good shape but could do with a better reference than autobiography in the Leadership Bid section, also the life after politics section could be improved with sources to some of the statements Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP, let alone one going to the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too many "citation needed" templates. If improvements are made, please "ping" me. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) US House votes to limit Trump's military power

 * Oppose As the BBC says it is " a largely symbolic resolution", definitely non-binding. It's basically the dem-heavy House going "We're warning you that we think you have overextended your war powers." and had no ramifications outside of election year politicking. --M asem (t) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No significance. It's just one chamber and there is zero chance this is going to pass the Senate. It's political theater. And in any event we don't don't do domestic politics below national elections (conceding rare exceptions). -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Symbolic measure with no long-term significance and no chance of being taken up in the Senate.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose House does a lot of things without the Senate.  Spencer T• C 13:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per 4 previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis

 * Oppose Yes, the air strike and retalitory missile firing was news, but all news suggest the events have quieted at this point and its already falling off the front page coverage. --M asem (t) 03:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support hasn't de-escalated completely yet, if it does we can remove it in a few days' time. Banedon (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my rational here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the flight crash and airstrike blurbs cover the major points for now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No further escalation expected at this time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. No need. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same reasoning as opposing US-Iran Relations for Ongoing a couple days ago ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Ongoing crisis, continuing tensions. De-escalation is by all signs temporary as the underlying tension remains. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ain't gonna fly. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose standard sabre rattling. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) UK Parliament approves Britain to leave from EU

 * Oppose Assuming the article quality is up to scratch, I would expect that Brexit will be posted when it actually happens. And its worth noting that this isn't even the final approval. The House of Lords still has to rubber stamp the bill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still has to be rubber stamped by The Lords and the Queen (and, at least as far as I know, by the EU Parliament, which might yet decide to be a bit awkward because it may not like been treated as a rubber stamp, tho this is so little In The News that, for all I know or care, it may have happened already without me noticing). Even then it will probably be fairly minor news. Incidentally, I wouldn't take it too much for granted that we'll post it when it happens at the end of this month, on grounds both that it's stale news (having been known about at least since Bojo won his majority in the election last month, which we posted) and at least arguably means little as this is (at least arguably) Brexit In Name Only(BRINO) while the 'real Brexit', if any, won't happen until the end of the transition period at the end of this year (assuming that isn't postponed, or fudged, etc) - but those are all questions for us to deal with then, not now. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that it would probably make more sense to put Brexit back into Ongoing instead of posting this (tho I'd almost certainly be opposed to Ongoing too, for such reasons as that it's now only minor news, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, wait until the 31st and post then. --Tone 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose & wait. As others have pointed out, passing the Commons is not the final step in becoming law. More importantly, the event itself happens in three weeks, so it would be more appropriate to post on 31 Jan / 1 Feb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tone.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support only after 31st January this will be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.43.3 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Walt, Orientem. Just an interim bit. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Resnick

 * Weak oppose a couple of citations being requested still. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've searched and searched, can't find sourcing, have removed this content. I believe the article now has no citation needed tags. --valereee (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the unsourced content has been removed. I don't see anything needing a citation now ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yong Pung How

 * Support Article looks in good shape Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti

 * Looks good to me &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * just before this became stale &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Buck Henry

 * Oppose - Per Masem, lots of sourcing issues with their filmography section ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. References are needed. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 15:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Iran-United States relations

 * Oppose - No, I don't think so. There is no evidence that any further escalation will be taking place.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the current blurb is on the main page. I am open to reconsidering once the blurb drops off the main page if there is enough going on to justify a place in ongoing. But let's cross that bridge when we get to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as blurb is already on main page and it seems as though (hopefully) this will be winding down soon ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - No further escalation? There was a response attack from Iran last night. And comments from Trump today. This is a clear case for Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they mean after the missile attack, there will be no more responses. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - All relations are ongoing.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nomination & I'd be willing to post an article specifically about the current US-Iran crisis (rather than just the relations), but only after the current blurbs are pushed out of the box (and only if there's continued news of new escalations at the time of posting, of course) Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis would probably be the better ongoing target, but I would reconsider posting the ongoing when the blurbs drop off, pending the situation at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a better target. If the nom weren't drowning in opposes I'd update it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Enough is enough. – Sca (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Christopher Beeny

 * Oppose while article is orange-tagged ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pilar de Borbón

 * Oppose Article needs source work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while article is orange-tagged. It needs a fair bit more citations ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sourcing inadequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment sourcing and information improved.(Alsoriano97) 22:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now sourced enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Bacon-Bercey

 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 18:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it was announced today, but I don't think this belongs on "recent deaths" because it is not a recent death. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, there's a prior consensus that a significantly delayed death announcement is used as a proxy for the date of death. Stephen 21:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

 * Support seems like a bad crash. Juxlos (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course but wait maybe an hour or two till we get more information . The coincidence is very interesting. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good time to short Boeing. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for the death toll, per C&C. No reports so far that this is connected to the bigger Iran story. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Reports affirming all 180 aboard (crew + passengers) killed --M asem (t) 05:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Unfortunately, there are no survivors. 76.21.97.234 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable for a number of unfortunate reasons, including the incredible coincidence with other current events involving Iran. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article generally in good shape, tagged sections could probably be lost without detriment to the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll has been corrected to 176 by CNN though, that should be taken into account before posting. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that the crash site is near Parand, perhaps the headline should be changed from "In Tehran" to "Near Tehran" or similar, unless Tehran is changed to Tehran Province. - Indefensible (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with altblurb or change to the main blurb as suggested by Indefensible. — MarkH21talk 06:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll confirmed & the article has been expanded significantly since the last time I checked Vanilla   Wizard  💙 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 07:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Blurb Change Question If I want to get the 'accidental missile' claims into the blurb (I'm not sure that I do, due to the words 'accidental' and 'claims', but there's a case for doing so, as their omission arguably will look strange and/or censored to many of our readers, etc), where should I ask for this, given that the omission is not an error and thus doesn't properly belong at WP:ERRORS, and that posting here (under a Posted heading) leaves the question almost invisible? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not invisible. You can post here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I didn't say it was invisible, I said it was almost invisible because of the 'Posted' bit in the section heading, which is presumably why the matter is being (problematically) debated at ERRORS, where it doesn't belong (because there are no actual errors). I've now started a discussion on this issue here. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is already being discussed at ERRORS. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs, but it's problematic at ERRORS (because there are no actual errors). I've now started a discussion on this issue here. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose change of blurb - similar to MH17, we should not post speculation about the cause, even in the form of accusations and denials, until it is officially confirmed. The originally posted version of blurb and the article text are sufficient to educate readers about what happened and what may have happened. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no unbiased international body to make an official determination here. There is verified video of the missile strike and RS are reporting this as a shootdown (if unintentional). 331dot (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Change blurb by adding "Iran rejects claims that it was shot down.". I did boldly make this change, as outlined at WP:MPE, but have since commented it out at Amakuru's request there. I believe the wording covers the claim that the aircraft was shot down, and Iran's denial that is was, without giving either side undue weight. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I might suggest "hit by a missile" which might imply less of a deliberate act(as "shot down" might). 331dot (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "shot down" does not imply intent. Iran Air Flight 655 is an example of this - there was no intent to shoot down a civilian airliner in that case. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Are we meant to discuss here or where Tlhslobus has suggested? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - here for this blurb, general discussion of the issue wher Tlhslobus suggested - WT:ITN I think. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Claims & counterclaims continue. Wait until cause made clear (which, as in the somewhat similar case of MH17, could be years). – Sca (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose change of blurb. Encyclopedia should report known and clear facts, not speculation.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose change Too many NPOV concerns. Why dignify a topic some countries say "probably" happened? Why is the denial given more weight? Why are the specific countries not mentioned? More notable and straightforward to wait for the airline's country's findings.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update blurb Iran has formally acknowledged they shot the plane down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update blurb per Ad Orientem.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb updated Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Should Iran's involvement be added to the lead e.g. "Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down by Iran shortly ..." or it's ommited because they said it's an accident? See Alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – "Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down shortly after takeoff..." is a woefully soft formulation. Every RS I've seen uses "Iran admits ... accidentally" or something like "Iran says it unintentionally..." (Source links above updated.)
 * Suggested change:
 * "Iran says it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off at Tehran, killing all 176 people on board."
 * – Sca (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Admit" is a word to watch, and they've said it's a mistake, so that would have to be in there if we added more than "is shot down by Iran" (see alt II).—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, suggestion modified to "says" & offered as alt3 above. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Iran update Use alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "says it mistakenly shot down"" if we have to write "says", it means there's doubt. I'd say plain "shot down" is the most neutral for now.—Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, we need a present-tense verb before the shooting-down part, as the latter occurred three days ago and is no longer the news about the topic (hence its past-tense "shot down"). – Sca (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Permit me to point out that says was substituted for admits to allay your objection the the latter. Beyond that, says doesn't necessarily imply doubt – especially since half the people on board were Iranians. For that reason, it's been pretty obvious that some Iranian military galoot made a huge mistake, and now Iran right up to its top leader admits this is so. But I do suggest that admits makes more sense here. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Refer to WP:INTEXT. If it's a general fact, we don't write "XYZ says", because it does leave the impression that other people dont think that. In this case "says" is needed, because there is skepticism.—Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was looking at "is shot down" from alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 - To leave out who shot down the plane is an insult to the readers ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alts 2 & 3 say Iran shot it down. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support ALT3. Iran took responsibility and we ought to give them credit. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's givning WP:UNDUE weight to Iran's statement. The world agrees that they shot it down. The verdict is out if it was a mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Iran shot down..." is fine. Keep the passive voice out of the news if you can. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am ok with Iran at the start, was only worried if that puts the focus unduly on them, which might actually be ok at this phase.—Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2, somene says doesn't sound good to me. Stryn (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2, "Iran says" puts the focus of the news item on the press statement, and not on the much more obvious issue of a civilian plane crashing due to military action. I'm not opposed to merely adding "mistakenly" to the current blurb if some find this critical. <i style="color:black">Rami</i> <i style="color:red">R</i> 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "mistakenly" would require a "says", since it's currently not generally accepted by the world that it was a mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 or a variant which makes clear there is a dispute as to intent - Rami's suggestion is OK. It's not neutral to say they "shot it down" without qualification, because that implies a deliberate shooting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * implies a deliberate shooting : Not so. Not saying "mistakenly" means we dont know the intent definitively, and the reader can read the article for more background. If a reader's inherent bias assigns intent when it's not stated, the issue is human nature and the reader, not the lack of wording. In the meantime, Iran's role remains out of the blurb, when nobody is disputing that they shot the plane.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT3 as per Amakuru above. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's protests within Iran, doubting whether it was a mistake. (argument against "mistake" in blurb, not to include protest in blurb). At any rate, ALT2 or 3 are better than the current ommision of Iran's role.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * From Sunday 's RS news:
 * – Iran braces for protests after admitting plane shootdown
 * – Iran admits it shot down jetliner by mistake
 * – Protests erupt again in Iran after admission of plane strike
 * – 'Disastrous mistake': Iran acknowledges shooting down Ukrainian airliner
 * – Support' blurb change as follows (call it Alt4):
 * "Protests arise after Iran admits it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner near Tehran, killing all 176 people on board."
 * – Sca (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support something like this. Either way, I think something has to be done to update this blurb. There is a clear consensus that the blurb should mention that Iran says it shot down the aircraft: 12 people support adding this information and I don't see anyone outright opposing it ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ to include "by Iran", i.e. alt2. More discussion needed on whether to include protests &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an improvement anyway – even though it's something the whole world has known for days. But protests are continuing. – Sca (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And Iran announces unspecified arrests of military persons who allegedly were responsible., , – Sca (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq

 * Support update only – Already reports that there were no casualties. It is not accurate to refer to them as U.S. bases. One was a U.S.-allied Iraqi base. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After a U.S. airstrike kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (pictured), at least 56 people die in a stampede during his burial procession in Kerman, and Iranian forces attack two military bases in Iraq.
 * I suggest the above blurb. A second blurb will repeat half of the information in the current blurb. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, I was having trouble finding a way to concisely cover all of the notable points. I'd be fine with that blurb, the only problem is just how many articles are bolded at once. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider it a positive. Each of these are either new articles or have been significantly improved. We should take the middle ground and let the reader choose which aspect of the story they are interested in reading. This is eventually going to end in an ongoing article at something like 2020 escalation in the Persian Gulf crisis, since this whole thing is an escalation of the 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. I agree with the above that the blurb should mention the killing of Soleimani. Adding in the stampede at the funeral may make for too complicated a blurb; I suggest not including the stampede in this blurb (altblurb suggested), and posting it separately, given the death toll. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support only as a replacement/update for the current Soleimani blurb. As noted above, the blurb would be too long if we include both this and the stampede, so after the stampede has had sufficient time on the front page (possibly in a few hours) I'd replace it with this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs could also work, as it's just concise enough.NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Support blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs Sherenk1 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Coffeeandcrumb's blurb. It's concise and also allows retainment of preceding aspects. Sleath56 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait till the details of "significant" impact emerge. AS per the reports released so far. No one has died. Iraq-Syria is a war zone and we dont post every missile attack in a war.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I'm wondering if we should move this to ongoing, as it's possible events could come quickly in the next few days. This might be better than amending the blurb every time. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "All is well"? Nsk92 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb updated according to suggestion by Coffeeandcrumbs &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs, or, alternately, making the US-Iran tensions an 'ongoing' item. There likely to be quick further developments there. Nsk92 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then wait till those "likely to happen quick further developments" actually occur. We post only after things have occured.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of significant developments have occurred already. Nsk92 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * please tell me what "'significant' developments have occurred already", In the article I see only a few missiles fired and no one killed (yet). I would say 'pretty normal' for a 'War Zone'.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on now, seriously? Open the front page of any major newspaper, in any language, in any country of the world, and you will get answers to your questions. Storming of the U.S. embassy in Iraq by shiite militas. A U.S. drone strike killing a top Iranian general and several Iraqi shiite militia leaders. Mass anti-U.S. demonstrations in Iran and Iraq. The Iraqi parliament passing a resolution calling for explusion of foreign troops. The international coalition suspending operations against ISIS in Iraq. A retaliatory ballistic missile attack by Iran on the U.S. bases in Iraq. None of these are ordinary things that are "normal" for Iraq. Nsk92 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments limited to the topic of this thread, the article 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq only. Those points are updates for another article already posted. D Big X ray ᗙ  09:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is an event which may happen once during decades, thus it is too important. -- Seyyed(t-c) 10:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 11:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not understand. This was already posted! Did you not read the comments above? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest you undo your update as C&C's prose is superior and had already been posted. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems that you are correct, that was already a part of the blurb. I see it is fixed now. --Tone 12:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, it is not fixed. Revert back to the revision by Stephen. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Of comparatively minor significance in the current context. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Jacques Dessange

 * I would like to know a bit about what he did between 1977 (when he stopped working as a hairdresser) and 2004 (when he retired) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems to have massive gaps in bio, per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Radcliffe wave

 * Comment I think the article needs to be improved quite a bit before it is ready for a main page link. --mfb (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability but oppose on quality since the article is only 2 paragraphs. (Added alt blurb, could use improving) <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Lacks impact/significance. – Sca (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am confused why a new article has been created. The study proposes that Gould's Belt is in the shape of a linear wave, not a ring as previously supposed. So why hasn't this proposal been added to our existing article on the topic? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's probably a better question at the article talk page, if you have concerns, start a merge discussion, and notify the appropriate WikiProjects. People with technical backgrounds to better understand the nature of the issue are more likely to read those places rather than here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Brand news. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elizabeth Wurtzel

 * Comment Bibliography needs refs --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ISBN numbers added to books to source. --M asem (t) 21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not read this carefully (it seems to be very heavy on quotations), I'm not keen on the sourcing for her (alleged) biological father. While he is deceased, her mother might not be (alive in 2015). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable author. † dismas †|(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there is one cn if you can attend to it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After several minutes digging the court records up, I've added it. --M asem (t) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Larry Gogan

 * Oppose until there's an RS that says that he's actually dead. —  Wasell ( T ) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated lead to include death date and reference Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment at least half a dozen unreferenced claims in the version of the BLP posted, including purported awards. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled. This shouldn't really have been posted as nobody in the discussion above said it was ready to go, and a quick glance reveals lots of uncited gunk. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prem Nath Hoon

 * Good enough. Marking ready &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support adequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Minati Mishra

 * Support Copyedited a bit. Looks good to go. Filmography section cited now. -Nizil (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign

 * Oppose Not to sound too harsh, but we've not given any other space to any other 2020 candidate yet, and doesn't make sense to now. We'll likely post when the Dems finish their primaries to pick their candidate, and should Chafee achieve that soft 5% line as to become invited to the major debates/get campaign financing - the first such 3rd party to do so if that happens - that might be a point, but I don't see that happening now. --M asem (t) 22:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Bill Weld's entry was mentioned with a blurb. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Weld's was announced via Portal:Current Events but not by ITNC, I think? If we have given any specific candidate for 2020 any time at ITNC, that was a mistake, that's the last thing we should be doing. --M asem (t) 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this isn't getting significant coverage in the news, because its effect is minimal. The Libertarian party rarely gets more than a few percentage points. Chaffee can't make up his mind which party he wants to belong to. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Baldessari

 * Oppose as it's a bit undersourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per mike_gigs. It's not in horrible shape but it's got a few gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too much unreferenced. This is a BLP.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Tilkowski

 * Support - Looks sourced well enough to me ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - "Honours" section is unreferenced at the moment. Fix that and it will be good to go. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - I had failed to notice that all the mentioned honours are already cited in the section above. All fine. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Venezuelan National Assembly (Speaker) election

 * Oppose this is an internal legislative process -- like choosing the speaker of the house. Guiado (who refused to support a new parliamentary election) will easily win the necessary 87 votes to be president of the assembly and will continue to insist that he is the Venezuelan president (even though the Supreme Tribunal of Justice disagrees). Literally nothing is changing here, and this is not a popular election by the people of Venezuela because Guaido has ruthlessly refused to hold one. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you say he'll easily win at a point when he apparently lost, which the blurb also said already. Laser, man, this oppose sounds arbitrary. Note that when you told me to not ask at the talk page, I was starting that discussion to see if people thought it would only be considered a speaker election rather than part of the presidential debate. Apparently that concern is accurate. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WT:ITN is the place to discuss the functioning of ITN, WP:ITNC is the place to discuss items for the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't have any recollection of internal parliamentary votes being posted for ITN Juxlos (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post parliamentary elections, and there's a good reason for that. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Murky. Also, a lot going on elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, international coverage and good article quality, but I will propose an altblurb to guarantee the neutrality needed for the nomination. The New York Times, CNN, Financial Times, El País, Miami Herald, among others.


 * To the users viewing this as an internal legislative election:, this is a major development to the Venezuelan crisis, which has had already a lot of coverage itself and is geopolitically important. Guaidó's bid to the presidency depends on his position as president of the National Assembly, and the article of the presidential crisis itself has not been included in the ITN so far, so this would be a good opportunity to do it. I plan to continue expanding and improving the article. I understand if you keep your position to oppose the nomination, I only want you to consider this not just as a simple internal election, but rather an important event in Venezuela.


 * To the posting user, if it is decided to post the entry: Several wordings can be included before "Juan Guaidó" for neutrality, context or convenience, such as "Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó", "President of the National Assembly of Venezuela Juan Guaidó", "Disputed President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó", "During the Venezuelan presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó's (...)". --Jamez42 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whilst electing two different speakers simultaneously is certainly unusual, this is just another twist in the long-running attempt by Guaido to oust Maduro, and the resistance to that. If/when there's a change in who actually runs the country, then that would be a good ITN blurb. A disputed election to a non-executive position is not. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose With rare exceptions, we don't generally post domestic political disputes other than national elections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is not about the election per se, but the use of force to replace the legislative leadership and to remove the claim of power to the interim presidency of Guaidó, also it was widely covered.--MaoGo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose local news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Long (actor)

 * Comment. Not well developed enough; there are only 2 sentences on his entire career. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a little. ミラP 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Now that ミラ has expanded the article and the references are ok. Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Singular They word of the year

 * Weak Support normally we don't post these sorts of things, but the article is in surprisingly good shape given the subject and I'm not sure how else it could be featured (not expanded enough for DYK). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a significant "honor" (we don't even post Time's person of the year). --M asem (t) 16:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I know that similar news about the word of the year in the German language appears regularly on the main page of the German Wikipedia, so it makes a lot of sense to adopt this practice for the English language here. After all, this is an English-language encyclopedia and recurrent news pertaining to the language is a very good on-topic encyclopedic content. However, what bewilders me the most is which one of the many annual assessments to take as the most relevant (probably Merriam-Webster's or Oxford's).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, news of transient significance from a non-regulatory language body (unlike some kind of English language reform). Brandmeistertalk  17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Is it too late to nominate Apostrophe Protection Society for ITN/RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC) (p.s. "word of the year"? what an incredibly dull choice)


 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this is just a group of people deciding that a certain word (and by extension issue) is worthy of recognition- much as Time magazine's 'person of the year' is just the opinion of a group of editors at a magazine.  In neither case is a governmental body or other impartial authority making a selection. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis

 * Just noting that this individual was killed in the same incident as Soleimani. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I guess we all forgot the obvious additional thing to do. Juxlos (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient quality.—Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba. TJMSmith (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * to recent deaths, but I would much prefer to update the blurb on Qasem Soleimani to include this person as an additional bolded link. What do others think? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with MSGJ, makes sense to publish together Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There was concern by at  that it would detract from the main story that Soleimani was the primary target and should be the bigger story.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'll note also that there is vigorous discussion of this issue (whether, e.g., it's an "airstrike", or "assassination of Soleimani" or "Soleimani–Mahdi assassination" or "killing" or something else) at Talk:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. In the thread below, my concern was specifically about describing this as "an American airstrike kills 10 people, including Soleimani and al-Muhandis" (which, in my view, makes it sound like Soleimani and Mahdi were both collateral damage in an airstrike, as opposed to Soleimani being the intended target and Mahdi being collateral damage), but there may be a way to combine 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike, Qasem Soleimani, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis all in one blurb–I don't mean to suggest that they shouldn't all be in one blurb no matter what. But I don't have any language to suggest (this is a tough editorial decision), and given the conversation on the airstrike article talk page, I can see that many editors have differing viewpoints on the matter.  – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like, "In an airstrike in Baghdad, the US assassinates Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, as well as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and eight others." – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something simpler like "In an airstrike in Baghdad, the US kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi politician Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and eight others." The details of the mission and its purpose can be left to the article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This dilutes the main news, Soleimani's death, which should remain the focus even if others are to be mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note there is an ongoing RM to rename the airstrike article to Killing of Qasem Soleimani. Perhaps the following keeps the emphasis on Soleimani: "In Baghdad, Iraq, the United States targets and kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike that also kills Iraqi politician Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and eight others."—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We should not change the current blurb. The death of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is not notable enough to be posted as a blurb. It is backwards to include him in Soleimani's, just because they died in the same airstrike, as it would give him undue weight. When discussion blurbs, we specifically discuss whether they are notable. We do not do that for RD. ― Hebsen (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jack Sheldon

 * Oppose The article is almost entirely unreferenced. Cannot be posted to main page in current state.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Qasem Soleimani killed

 * Support Ҥ (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support If true... this is a really big deal. But we need solid confirmation and we need to be very careful about how we word the blurb. In particular the word "assassinate" is one we need to be careful with. It should only be used if it is being widely used by RS sources in their reporting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wait for confirmation of belligerent. Citations need in BLP article. §In popular culture orange tagged. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - waiting for American confirmation sounds pretty silly, since clearly the Iranians have more reliable information about whether Qasem Soleimani is dead. Banedon (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We were waiting for confirmation on who killed him. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The US has officially acknowledged killing him and that should be published in all the relevant media outlets momentarily. Nole  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 03:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SupportThis is currently a breaking news story on CNN Riadse96 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support and Comment the 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack article is in development, I would say either wait for it or update with it later. Juxlos (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This is part of a significant heating of the Iran–United States relationship and will undoubtedly lead to further conflict. Even that latter point aside, it is significant news, and that's what ITN is about. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb & Oppose original blurb - I also think 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack would suit better in this case.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Enormous news story, no quality concerns with the articles (bar the pop culture section, which can be fixed), blurbs are sufficient. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 03:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 03:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - writing a wikinews article about this now, breaking news. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. Suleimani was one of the most powerful men in the Middle East for well over a decade. Him being killed in an air strike is a huge deal. Kurtis (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we link 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack on the news as it is mostly ready. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Because multiple people including another highly notable military commander (Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis) were killed and it's the airstrike that's the main story here I'm thinking we can mention those in the blurb. (e.g. In Baghdad an American airstrike kills 10 people, including Soleimani and al-Muhandis) EternalNomad (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose changing the blurb in that way, as it suggests the airstrike had some purpose other than to kill Soleimani. I prefer the current blurb ("In Baghdad, Iraq, an American airstrike kills General Qasem Soleimani (pictured), commander of the Iranian Quds Force.") – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment 50+ were killed after a stampede in his funeral - I think we have to either have a blurb for this, or somehow incorporate this into the existing blurb. Juxlos (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Yeah, with "at least 40" (AP) killed in stampede at funeral procession,     we probably should update the existing blurb. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've suggested an alt blurb incorporating the stampede; I used 'at least 40' dead since his article cites 40 dead, but figures seem to vary slightly. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest slightly shorter Alt3, offered above. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * – Shades of Nicholas II. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Blurb Updated using alt 3 to reflect the funeral deaths. [Merry Christmas!] -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm removing "top" from "top Iranian General" because it evokes a type of hyperbolic media headline inappropriate for a more sober encyclopedia. (There's no rank of "Top General" AFAIK, and he wasn't even of the most senior rank of general. His importance is implied by the fact that we're highlighting his death.)  Sandstein   15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Should we also link (probably not bolded, but just link) Funeral of Qasem Soleimani in the blurb? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was just thinking of that. I will attend to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposed better wording proposed in alt4 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose alblurb V: In Baghdad, Iraq, an American airstrike kills General Qasem Soleimani (pictured), commander of the Iranian Quds Force, and at his funeral procession in Kerman, Iran, at least 56 people die in a stampede. The current wording minimizes the impact of the killing, as if it is just context to the stampede. This is actually two related things that are both noteworthy of blurbs in themselves.  ― Hebsen (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does the world's press insist on calling it a "stampede"? This event doesn't seem to fit the description in that Wikipedia article. It wasn't a stampede, it was a crush. The term is pipe-linked as crush of people at e.g. Hillsborough disaster, and I'd suggest that's the wording that should appear in the blurb. Will ask at Errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If Iranians called it a stampede and the major news agencies call it a stampede I'm comfortable with calling it a stampede. Juxlos (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Iran has shot several missiles at two US bases in the area. Not to minimize the deaths from the crush/stampede here, but I think this may be a more important facet that we should be featuring here. --M asem  (t) 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded, perhaps something like:
 * In retaliation for the American airstrike which killed General Qasem Soleimani, Iran launches missiles at American forces in Iraq.
 * At this time the casualties are not known. Davey2116 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I started a separate nomination for discussion about the Iranian strike in particular. A blurb combining both the killing of Soleimani and the Iranian strike may be a little too wordy, especially if we continue to mention the deadly stampede. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 04:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment We may need a dedicated article for the 2020 US Iranian Crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 2020 escalation in the Persian Gulf crisis is a better title for consistency. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Cieneguillas prison riots

 * Support - Sourced. Ready. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not ready. A one sentence update for the second riot is not at all satisfactory. Background section can be re-titled "filler" and ignored. I believe this qualifies as a Bus plunge disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is much more on the second riot, spread through the other sections. The background gives important context. 16 people in one riot is more than Mexico has seen in years and isn't exactly your everyday 'bus plunge' anywhere else. We posted riots with four dead last year, which already meets the threshold for notable number of deaths, so you can't oppose on that. @Laser, I know you're blunt with everyone, but a little good faith would be appreciated on my end, at least. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Good article quality and significant death toll. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Wyche

 * Support I added a couple more sources. Good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marian Finucane

 * Support References added, the article looks ready (to me) Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shen Yi-ming

 * Support, given the education section has been referenced I think it's in good shape. Besides, it's a gruesome death of someone important. (I mean, every death is gruesome in this case, I mean what it meant for the country this particular death). --CoryGlee (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good but short article, well referenced Joseywales1961 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 New Taipei helicopter crash

 * Comment. The blurb does not mention that the Army chief (and maybe others) died. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is also at AfD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bus plunge disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I congratulate you on your recent discovery of this silly term, but encourage you to read the article more carefully as none of the three stories you've so tagged in the past week qualify.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Eight military deaths is not quite ITN-level news. Might we instead develop an RD for Gen. Shen Yi-ming? – Sca (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally do not plot crashes of military craft carrying military personnel (line of duty, etc.) RD for Yi-ming is reasonable. --M asem (t) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD for Shen Yi-ming would be logical though. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability but support RD for the Chief of Staff. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality and length. People are people and I see no indication that this was a battle field operation. I do not understand how crashes of military transport in peace time are any less notable. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Jakarta floods

 * Support, came here to see why it is not already on front page. Renata (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The article is generally light on details, and short if you exclude the background section (which I do when considering updates). Also isn't it monsoon season over there? Isn't rain expected? Seems we routinely crap on similar weather related stories in the US (tornadoes, floods, fires). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rain is expected, but this was the worst in 24 years. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 *  Support in principle  – pending development of article. Reuters puts toll at 26. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Mimihitam (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on article quality - currently about half uncited. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I think it's good enough as of now. This is definitely one of the worst Jakarta floods in the last 20 years (perhaps to the same extent or even worse than the 2007 one).  Masjawad99  💬 08:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Death toll has risen up to 43 as of Jan 3.  Masjawad99  💬 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, per AP – Sca (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Support This is the first natural disaster of the year that I have heard of apart from Australian bushfires. But I want to alert that the article says 48 prople have been killed but the blurb mentions only 16. Abishe (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.Yogwi21 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Almost ready, but needs a bit of copyediting before I would be willing to post: 2020_Jakarta_floods especially, but the other sections could do with some as well. Expansion-wise, meets minimum standards but could use more.  Spencer T• C 06:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It could use an infobox too. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 – Toll up to 53, says AP on Saturday. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No mention of displaced was currently in the article (and any reports are likely a current count and not cumulative, counting those already back home).—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I now see in the article (with a different number than in the blurb): More than 397,000 residents had been evacuated to higher grounds. Discussion can continue whether more than death toll should be in the suggested blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Barker

 * Support referenced; brief but adequate depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 05:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Don Larsen

 * Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Gone to throw another perfect game to Yogi. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Stern

 * Support: Has now been reported by ESPN and other major news sources. Resolved the only extant cn tag  p  b  p  23:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Per guideline MOS:PROSE, prose is preferred over a simple list of events under "Notable events during Stern's tenure". Also per policy WP:STRUCTURE, a dedicated controversy section does not seem appropriate at "Controversies"—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support NPOV issues with "Controversy" section resolved. Timeline list also integrated into prose.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Concerns have been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Absolutely notable enough for RD. Prose issues have since been resolved. Aria1561 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 PDC World Darts Championship
Oppose No indication of significance of this event for the popular bar sport. Perhaps best to debate this on WP:ITNR in lieu of annual rehash. Happy New Year all.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't usually comment at ITN/C, but to cancel out the ludicrous oppose above. A high-quality article on the main global championship in a sport as high-profile and popular as darts (and a championship with an even higher profile than usual this year owing to the extensive press coverage of Fallon Sherrock) should be an absolute no-brainer for ITN. &#8209; Iridescent 08:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A great article about an event that has coverage in the news and readers might learn something from. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support global event and the article's in reasonable shape. ——  SN  54129  09:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and marked Ready. Excellent article, event has enough global reach to be eligible for ITN (as per last two years). I have moved the image to WP:CMP so that it will be protected if/when this is promoted. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment A period is missing from the end of this ITN entry as is. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Ludicrous placement among three serious news items about international events involving dozens of deaths. Darts? Inappropriate in context. (But at least we got rid of the ridiculous picture.) – Sca (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We post items when they happen, in chronological order. We cannot control when such events will happen.  We don't have that sort of power.  Maybe if you can control human events in that way, you could pitch in and prevent sporting events from happening in close temporal proximity to major tragedies.  That would help.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I know all that. Had I voted on this item, which is not WP:ITNR, I would have opposed it (per Bagumba) as lacking significance, but it was obvious it was going to get railroaded in, as in the past, by the usual coterie of diehard darts devotees. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of what we post is not on ITNR. Being on ITNR has never been a requirement for something to be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know that. The point was, it didn't have to be posted, and it's not a significant news item – even in the rarefied world of sports. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources would disagree with your assessment that this is not significant. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * John Bull pointing.png

British sources, perhaps? – Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Ng Jui Ping

 * Oppose Article seems to be a list of schools and jobs (in essence, a CV or resume), without any real depth of coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 01:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)