Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2018

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

(Posted) Blurb: Death of George H W Bush

 * Support RD - Well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support though the article lacks a death section. I also have a feeling some are going to call for a blurb on this, which I'm indifferent on it at the moment. Bush Sr. was rather influential in US politics. --M asem (t) 05:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The longevity section has been expanded to include his death. I'm trying to compile information on his recent illnesses to help flesh it out further.  Sounder Bruce  05:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, just saw this. The section above where it includes Barbara's death has some, but not needed for quality purposes right now. --M asem (t) 05:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Decided to merge the three together into a single subsection. It's still WP:PROSELINE, but I think it can be turned into something readable by the monkeys at the typewriters.  Sounder Bruce  05:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is in very good shape, just pending a few adjustments due to his passing.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Support blurb. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support—prefer a blurb over RD.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly notable; comprehensive section on his health. --Andymii (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Support blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This article gives a satisfactory description of its subject. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Very notable figure worldwide, article in good shape and sure to improve further over the next 24 hours. KConWiki (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - needless to say, US presidents are among the most influential people in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD until consensus for blurb develops. Stephen 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb obviously. If former POTUS doesn't get a blurb, who does? Davey2116 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - seems appropriate. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The notion that his death merits a blurb simply because he was once POTUS is U.S.-centric. --173.129.141.77 (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As if potus isn't one of the most important positions worldwide anyway. Right. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * US-centric or not, the fact is that the POTUS is one of most important and powerfull people in the world.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb of course. Highly globally influential. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per the above comments.  Calidum   06:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Highly notable figure in both American and world politics. Presided over the United States during events such as the Persian Gulf War and the fall of the Soviet Union, and arguably notable by virtue of the extreme stature of his position. Master of Time   ( talk ) 06:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since every recent president death has been articleworthy, I went ahead and started a stub at Death of George H. W. Bush. It will need to be worked on, but it seems like an article worth having. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once citation needed tags resolved. I tagged uncited stuff and fixed one tag myself, but don't have the time to work on the rest. Absolutely deserves a blurb, and not just ex officio. Storied career before the presidency, and as a president oversaw key events like the end of the Cold War and Desert Storm. Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - A few tags don't hurt with the overall article quality. G2G I'd say. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose still tagged, once that's addressed happy to go with a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support maybe the link can be Death and state funeral of George H.W. Bush? Chetsford (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, in fact maybe even make deaths of former Presidents of the United States ITNR. Banedon (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb A blurb is not warranted for someone simply because they were the head of state of a country. This is an example of where the recent deaths section is useful. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb Hesitant not to support the former head of state of the world’s #1 superpower but he was a one-term president and IMO wasn’t nearly influential as his predecessor Reagan, so I’m fine either way. EternalNomad (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He was a president of the US for chrissakes.  Nixinova   T   C  £
 * Oppose blurb - the support blurb camp seems to be based on either "He was US president" (so what?) and that some big world wide events took place during his presidency, though I don't recall that he was instrumental in bringing about the changes. I would consider him more of a John Major than Margaret Thatcher, though I would have opposed her blurb as well. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 08:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Not just because he was a president, but because he was a high-profile one, very active in international politics, only the second of a father-son presidential pair, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not true - there have been far more than two times where a father and a son were the president of a country - and many more if we replace 'president' with 'head of state' or 'head of country' Chrisclear (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's blindingly obvious from the context that I'm talking about the USA. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - No disrepect to those currently listed on RD, but of a magnitude more significance and impact than those.yorkshiresky (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: winning in chess and motorsports are fine, but his position in world history seems more note-worthy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary. Bush was an effective, uncontroversial one-term president. Not really transformative in any way. This is what RD is for. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ever since the RD reform, it is no longer for things like this. Banedon (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about read my lips no new taxes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - Bush Sr. won't be remembered as the most significant president of his era (he won't be the most significant president named Bush, most likely), but his stature and impact means that, in my eyes, he just about clears the bar for blurb. Article is in good shape, good work. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull - Hardly anybody knows about this guy outside of North America region. 2607:9880:4038:22:6139:758E:1804:6452 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply not even remotely true. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Post Posting Support for blurb US centristm is not always avoidable. When Mr. Bush entered office the US was one of two super-powers. When he left office, there was just one. His policies, especially in the Middle East, have hugely influenced the shape of the modern world. [Memory eternal]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Could "Dies" be linked with Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush? It looks like a solid wrticle now and it's relevant. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Anchorage earthquake

 * Self-explanatory wait damage has been reported, but we need it to be quantified before it can be compared with recent/historical events and thus its suitability for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on both significance and quality. There appear to be no casualties, thankfully, and the article is a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait based on photos I've seen on Twitter I expect this will be posted, but the article quality (and indeed the primary source reporting) isn't there yet. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "It did not cause as much damage as you would think." and no casualties. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. Based on social media photos this does look pretty significant, but the article quality is nowhere near ready yet. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I improved the article quite a bit, and I believe that this is quite a major earthquake, damage wise. Even if there are no casualties, repairing the damage will cost in the millions. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until cost estimates are released. For comparison, the 2011 Virginia earthquake cost upwards of US$100M, but that was the strongest in the eastern U.S. since 1944. This 7.0 is not even the strongest to affect Alaska this year. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait a little bit more for the further updates. TOOSOON to post.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance. No fatalities or serious injuries reported, and a handful of highways have some damage, but beyond that it is an incredibly minor event (thankfully).  Sounder Bruce  04:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems like almost no casualties were reported - very much doubt this will be receiving much coverage tomorrow. Juxlos (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - luckily the impact seems to be minimal, with no fatalities, and that lowers its significance dramatically. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I wouldn't like to have been there, but this temblor hasn't had significant consequences. Sca (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nom The impact of a 7.0 earthquake is never "incredibly minor" or "minimal", there were no fatalities because the buildings were designed to withstand it, but the buildings themselves have been damaged. The infrastructure damage is serious. If you are opposing, please explain why you think these consequences are not "significant". Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - firstly, your support is implicit as nominator, so you should change your comment to differentiate it from a !vote. As to why the lack of casualties renders this minimal in relation to ITN, it is simple - no one died, the damage caused was far smaller than earthquakes of comparable scale. The buildings still stand because of solid engineering and architecture - that's great, fair play to them. It also dampens the impact of the incident greatly. "Something potentially bad happened, but it had a negligible impact because people had mitigated against it" is not a significant story, no matter what way you look at it, just as "man plots mass murder, police arrest man before anything happens" wouldn't make it to ITN. Some highways are damaged, and that is significant for the people of Anchorage. Quite simply, with small financial damage and no bodies, this is not a story with the impact needed for ITN. BY my count, the most recent earthquakes posted had 77, 134, and 34 deaths. This has none. Hence, it is not as important a story, and doesn't need a blurb, at least in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry, I left my crystal ball at home today. The infrastructure damage is significant. The last I heard from National Geographic is the USGS has predicted a 35% chance of damages between 100million and 1 billion. The aftershocks are still ongoing. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stormy. This story's appearance on Major Eng.-lang news sites yesterday (Nov. 30) was brief mainly due to the absence of fatalities, which in major earthquakes can number in the hundreds. Today it's no longer in the news internationally. Sca (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Today it's no longer in the news internationally. So? It's still being covered in the national press in the United States. You know what isn't? The World Chess Championships. So I guess ongoing coverage in the international press is not a particularly reliable indicator of whether or not an event is significant. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A bit of shaking and rattling, but thankfully, nothing too serious. WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The impact has turned out to be (thankfully) limited, with low casualties and no widespread destruction. As natural disasters go, this has had little effect. Local transport difficulties do not justify a blurb. Modest Genius talk 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Fulton

 * Posted Stephen 23:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 G20 Buenos Aires summit

 * Oppose presently. Only the G7 is in ITNR and we post that at its conclusion. If some major agreement is reached during G20, we can post that. --M asem (t) 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time to change the policy then. Not only did we apparently post the election of the president of Ireland (a ceremonial post), which was a far less important event than this meeting, but even more importantly it's self-evident that G20 and its meeting are far more important than the summits of G7. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Elections for head of state are ITNR, and efforts to change that haven't really gone anywhere. This meeting is not ITNR, if you want to add it, you are welcome to attempt to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We had G20 before - but basically hardly anything of import happens. Should a significant resolution like the Paris climate change agreement be announced and signed, then a statement on its closure about it can be nominated. --M asem (t) 15:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose not notable enough on its own to merit posting. This used to be part of ITN/R, but was removed last year (here) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support most important intergovernmental meeting of the year. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why, and according to who? Is something substantive expected to come out of it? 331dot (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * >"Why" Look at the countries presiding in G7 and compare them to countries presiding in G20. Hint: even China isn't in G7, let alone India, Russia or other big players. Such international juggernauts as Canada or Italy are, though. Also, compare the amount of attention even in the regular MSM, let alone specialized journals to summits of G7 and G20. >"according to who" To everyone who's follow the international affairs. >"Is something substantive expected to come out of it?" Possibly a (long term?) truce in the trade and cold wars with China. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Possibly" is not "expected". If something substantive does come out of it, that can be nominated.  Otherwise this is just world leaders gathering to chat. Russia was in the G7(then 8) but was kicked out.  331dot (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * >"Possibly" is not "expected". And this is exactly why I didn't cite expectations in my argument for inclusion in the ITN. I only mentioned them because you asked me directly in the comment. >"Russia was in the G7(then 8) but was kicked out" And? The argument was that we post meetings of G7 but not meetings of G20, which is strange because G20 is far more important by every conceivable measure I can come up with. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right in theory, Openlydialectic, tho it doesn't follow that the G20 should be ITNR rather than that the G7 (and perhaps also APEC and World Fairs) should be removed from ITNR. There was a clear consensus for removing G20 just a year ago, so that probably won't change, but nobody then discussed either G7 or APEC or World Fairs, so you might propose removing any of those (and in the case of G7 you may well have an especially strong case because the 2011 discussion cited for its inclusion was for G8, not G7, tho I can't be sure how relevant that is). However the proper place for that discussion is the ITNR Talk page, not here. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Trump/Putin, Trump/Xi, May and whoever from the EU was invited, Macron and MBS ... this isn't your ordinary G20. As we know "Not being ITNR does not prevent this from being nominated at ITNC." Article is not comprehensive enough for main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an Ongoing nomination, meaning that there is expected to be incremental updates to the article.  That doesn't seem likely in this case; we usually don't post meetings like this until they conclude or some sort of substantial development/agreement comes out of them- which would be a regular ITN nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Routine and uninteresting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the G7 summits that are, as we all know, extraordinary and fascinating. Ehh, who am I arguing with... Openlydialectic (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for ongoing. If anything of note comes from it, post that, otherwise, nope.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Either Wait, or better still Close, leaving anyone sufficiently interested free to decide whether or not to Reopen (as a brand new nom) when we know what the results are (and thus what our blurb should be). These summits have always only been posted at the end. So having it open now is not just premature, it reduces its chances of success by prematurely piling up Oppose votes which are still liable to get counted by the assessing admin and others, as well as tending to deter people from working to improve the article by implying their efforts will be largely wasted. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Once the tree-hugging snowflake do-gooders get a good old beating at the hands of the security.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose ongoing as there are no ongoing substantial updates to the article, let alone events significant enough for ITN. Wait before considering a blurb, as that entirely depends what, if anything, is decided at the meeting. If there is a major international agreement with significant effects, maybe it would be worth posting. If the only result is the usual bland communique, it won't. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – So far the only interesting thing about this G20 is the malfunction of Merkel's govt. plane, a VIP version of the A340. – Sca (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the signing of the USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) was significant, but that's only signatures, not ratification and not ITN worthy. --M asem (t) 20:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't make sense as an ongoing nomination. We should wait and see what the outcome is. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this apparently isn't ITNR, and I don't see the point of posting this before the summit happens. If anything important happens we can re-consider this on Sunday with a different blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eldon George

 * Support - Article is sourced. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - The third and a little bit in the fourth paragraph have little to no sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Georgian presidential election, 2018

 * Oppose has not yet been updated sufficiently --DannyS712 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per notability The presidency is a ceremonial post in that country. Georgia is a small country of just 3.5 million people. It's also a post-soviet country so women rights there are not as bad as in most other third world countries, so the election of a woman is not that surprising. The blurb is misleading, other women held the title of interim president (back when it was not a ceremonial post btw) on two occasions. Oh, and speaking of surprising, her victory was predicted from the start since, despite technically running independent, she had full support of the Georgia's rulling party, which in turn is both popular in Georgia and had all the means of the "administrative resource" to ensure her victory. tl;dr I don't see anything ITN-worthy here Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Irish president blurb was posted recently. That is a largely ceremonial post. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * While there was some discussion about changing it, this is still ITNR as far as I am aware, and can be posted once sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * New head of state in a sizeable and geographically strategic country − ∴ ITNR. Sca (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As stated above, the President of Georgia is ceremonial, and several attempts to fix this obvious oversight at ITN/R have gone nowhere. Live with it, or help fix it next time. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support The article is a bit light on prose, but the updated information is in there in prose, so I guess this would be alright. Not great, but I won't hold it up.  -- Jayron 32 18:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality. Article has a lot of tables but more prose is needed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is functionally a list of tables. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kartarpur Corridor

 * I agree that this seems important, but the article seems bare-bones to me. Is there any potential for expansion? 331dot (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Due to significance. Article is referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to timing. This is not the announcement, start, or completion of the corridor. This is a ceremonial "ground-breaking." ghost 12:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ghost. This is still under construction. According to the article, this event is the second foundation stone being laid! I'm not convinced this is significant enough anyway - it's far from the Berlin Wall coming down. Modest Genius talk 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove ongoing: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis

 * Support removal no longer really in the news, has been "ongoing" for long enough --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal - as above, no longer of significance required for the main page, no longer in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDOIT I like this story, so I went fishing for a counter-argument but could find none. ghost 12:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal – old news. Sca (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 23:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove ongoing: 2018 California wildfires

 * Support While there will remain cleanup and aftermath issues, as well as the criticism being tossed at Trump for his claims about why the fires happen, the main story is pretty much over. --M asem (t) 17:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal In the past 4-5 days, I see very little in the way of substantive edits. A few incremental changes to casualties and damage figures as new numbers become more finalized, but I don't see a lot of actual major updates to the story.  This seems to have also dropped out of the news cycle in major sources.  Given that it isn't being substantively updated, and it isn't a major news story anymore, I'd support its removal.  -- Jayron 32 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal job done. Good to go (away). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove. The event has run its course. Modest Genius talk 17:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal no longer "In the News" enough to qualify --DannyS712 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove – It's over. Sca (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Lulu and Nana

 * Oppose "claims"; "His work, which he announced earlier this week, has not been verified."; "Prof He's university - the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen - said it was unaware of the research project and would launch an investigation." So, we're not actually even sure if this is a true story or not. Oppose, at least until such time as it's actually confirmed.  88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support The blurb should be rephrased to critically emphasise the unconfirmed and unreviewed nature of the claim. But otherwise it's good to go, because if it's true (and it increasingly sounds to be true), this is a huge (and extremely dangerous) step not just for our society, but for humanity and it's future in general Openlydialectic (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting unverified claims.  It appears this is being looked into, so we may get an answer at some point. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a definitive crackpot unless and until these claims can be verified. WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. Huge news if true, both for science and for ethics, but even the researcher's own university doesn't seem to know what has happened. If/when convincing evidence is published to verify these results (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal) then we should post. At present they're eye-catching but unverifiable claims. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This will be investigated, and we can post in the unlikely event that this is true. We generally don't post fringe lies on ITN. I don't care who the guy is, because even Michael Atiyah himself has become an unreliable figure in mathematics. w umbolo   ^^^  14:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - as OA => wait for verication seems best of course; however, blurb notes that the news is a "claim" - and - there seems to be a considerable amount of worthy international press coverage (clearly "In The News" so-to-speak) => Google Search for "Lulu and Nana" gives 27.2k results at the moment (10am/et/usa, 28 November 2018) (perhaps compare similar search results - and the significant upward trend in the related graph - with the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" news article not long ago?) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Clearly not at a point where we'd post for the scientific merit (no peer-review article yet and no one else has validated the claims), and the only reason this is in the news is bringing to light the controversy on genetically modifying humans which has significant ethical implications, which in the larger scheme of things, isn't much ITN right now either, at least until the scientific claim is validated. --M asem (t) 15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This remains unverified. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous opposes, esp. Masem 's. – Sca (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable news as it stands. ITN guidelines do not require the news must be verified. STSC (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As presented the blurb suggests this is about the claimed genetic modification. That 100% requires a peer-review source, and likely one that meets MEDRS to be policy-compliant. --M asem (t) 16:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, "Lulu and Nana" is just an article about the incident in which Dr He announced what he had done. STSC (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could claim to have lived underwater for a year. Needs verification, peer review, etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Worth a try, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He's been living there all along. STSC (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest support - Only a selfie with GOD (swt) would beat this news. Even finding aliens won't beat this news. #DownWithScientism,YesToCommonSense 72.140.114.159 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's being reported by WP:RS, article is in good shape, and it's a significant event. No one proposed waiting for independent verification of a NASA lander on mars. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a documentable event (unless you want to take the stance NASA faked the landing), and undocumented and yet proven claim that this guy successfully genetically modified embryos. --M asem (t) 22:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait Definitely notable enough if it has occurred, but I feel we need some better verification. Not necessarily peer reviewed as that could take a while, but enough to reduce the lingering doubt. Confirmation from the university would do it for me. If published I would add germline to the blurb as that is the key here, somatic cells have been targeted for a little while now. Germline opens up a whole set of potentials and risks. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. For scientific news, this definitely needs verification contrary to the supports saying it's enough so far. Things like major medical organizations confirming it actually happened for one (to use an example from above, NASA reporting that their lander made it on to Mars). This may not be the case for other news, but WP:MEDPOP is pretty clear on why science news needs a higher bar compared to other things that might come up for an In the news candidate. I'd have no prejudice against considering this when more information is out there though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I think this event is not enough for SCIENCE NEWS for now since more scientific approach has not come and the event may revert greatly.Mariogoods (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's break it down: 1. If he did it, we post. 2. If he didn't, we don't post. 3. We're not sure, so we... post it? Get a grip. ghost 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Alternative blurb: China suspends the scientist He Jiankui who claims to have engineered the birth of Lulu and Nana, the first genetically edited babies. STSC (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably that is the verified story here - the controversy over this announcement (whether it was successfully or scientifically validated or not) and to that end, that's possibly more interesting. But I think that we've have to change the article's focus and organization to be better suited for that. --M asem (t) 21:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tried to steer the article away from being a medical-orientated article. STSC (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Quality newspaper headlines are seldom filled with such outrageous claims. Article itself seems sufficiently peer-reviewed. Maybe the scientist's suspension resumes the outrage. Wakari07 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Too arcane and unclear for Main Page. Chinese government action muddies the story. Sca (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Leslie Smith

 * Comment': Looking good. There's a formatting error with reference 10 and references 17 through 20 have bare URLs.  Happy to switch to support once these are sorted - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Iffy★Chat -- 10:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Dumelow (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support has been updated, good enough quality --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) World Chess Championship

 * Comment The blurb may not be strictly accurate if all the tiebreak games are not drawn, and specifying the 100% draw record refers to the classical games may make the blurb too lengthy. I've added a simpler alt blurb. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the second blurb once the match ends and the winner is known. The winless record in the classical games is trivial and the blurb shouldn't be overburdened with it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt per Kiril (if the article quality is OK - I haven't checked, and it's updated suitably once the result is known). Lose the "title" at the end though. It's unnecessary and doesn't match the format of any other sporting blurbs at ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * re-open now? Carlsen won the tie-breaker. w umbolo   ^^^  18:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reopened. Please don't nominate ITNR before event has even started. -- KTC (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The match has been running since 9 November. This nomination was on the eve of the tie-breakers, and I really don't see the problem with accessing the quality of the article shortly before the conclusion of the match.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The event started on 9 November. There was no point in closing this nomination for 6 hours. It could have been left open and nothing bad would have happened (apart from more eyes on the articles nominated, to assess their quality). Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the first game started long ago. I specifically meant today's tiebreak games. Regarding assessing the quality of the article, since the article required to be updated to include today's tiebreak games before any ITN posting, there were absolutely no other possible assessment result other than not ready. As ITNR, the readiness of the article is the only consideration, so what we have is people nominating hours before it's even possible for the article to be update. You can't even say a nomination may encourage another editor to improve the article to readiness since that's impossible before a result. And no, this isn't the first nomination I have closed for this precise reason, and I see no reason why I would not continue to close such nominations if I see it. -- KTC (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt. There are no thumbnails for the tie-breaker in the article, but there are brief opening descriptions and the moves. w umbolo   ^^^  18:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Honestly either is fine, but mild preference for ALT.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt. Necessary updates look to have been done. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt ITN/R and there seems to be sufficient prose and updates. Don't need the trivia about the number of draws.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted (alt). Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment an image has been added to this blurb, and is currently the image shown in ITN on the main page. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Pastor

 * Support I fixed up the article a bit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. K. Rao

 * Support good enough for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jean Barker, Baroness Trumpington

 * Weak oppose too many unreferenced claims for BLP at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. Also, it is in clear violation of the standards outlined in Biographies of living persons. &#8213; Susmuffin  Talk 06:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Hillenburg

 * Support - article needs a "death" section or subsection but this death is really recent, I'll assume that someone would add it soon anyway. Juxlos (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - well-sourced. I have addressed Juxlos' concern above by making an "Illness and death" section. --M asem (t) 18:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And to head it off, Oppose Blurb. Even in the US, where Spongebob is well known, Hillenburg was not a household name in contrast to someone like Stan Lee. Certainly not a leader of the field. --M asem (t) 19:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good article and updated well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article appears to be in good condidtion. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb A monumental person in the history of animated cinema. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This was a recent death nomination when the editors (other than ) expressed their support for it - it was changed to a full blurb nomination afterwards (by Openlydialectic) Also, support RD on quality, but oppose blurb on significance. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted RD, there will obviously be no consensus for anything more than that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, oppose blurb per Danny. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) InSight lands on Mars

 * Support exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears good on sourcing and updated appropriately. --M asem (t) 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment an alternative image is File:NASA-InSightLander-FirstImageFrom_Mars-20181126.png. It is the "First picture returned from the Insight Mars lander, taken through transparent lenscap which has not yet been removed from camera." (from file description), but is not very visually appealing. Also, support as nom. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PIA22812-Mars-InSightLander-Landing-20181010.jpg Maybe this file instead? It more clearly depicts the landing process. Also the deployment of the heat probe as shown in the original render won't take place for two days. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support new image (more than old one initially proposed) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. DS (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Obviously a major story. Sca (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and italicized as a spacecraft/lander. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but wait a couple more hours until the successful deployment of the solar arrays is confirmed or this was only partially successful. Article looks great, but the landing is only one half of today's news. Kenmelken (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the little bugger landed and that's the ITNR. Article adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support landing is confirmed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Any successful landing on another planet, or other body, is newsworthy.76.79.179.74 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Big news and a big mission. Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Matthew Hedges

 * Oppose was always going to happen, joke accusation, joke sentence, almost more of a joke near-instant complete pardoning. The ridiculous parody is complete.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - are you trying to say the whole thing is a joke?!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Whilst this gained some media attention, the conviction led to immediate diplomatic and academic protests; in response Hedges was quickly pardoned. He's now been released and is back in the UK. This turned out to be a flash-in-the-pan incident; highly stressful for those concerned but now resolved with little long-term impact. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting impact. This was recently created, so this may be eligible for DYK.  Spencer T• C 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bernardo Bertolucci

 * I'd say that he deserves a blurb, but this is reddit wikipedia ofcourse and he didn't write comic books, so I guess proposing one is useless anyways. Openlydialectic (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How unhelpful. But feel free to nominate a blurb.  His death has already moved off the BBC News homepage.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If we only posted what caught the BBC's attention our ITN feed would be filled with news about pop singers and evil chinese. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you say so. But this is a meaningless thread here and now, so feel free to make your proposed death blurb and/or propose a shift in ITN inclusion criteria on the talk page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to it if you can you provide any citation from reputable sources that name him in the top five living directors. I went fishing but couldn't find him in the top 40.  ghost 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wonder if Tarkovsky belonged to "TOP 5 best directors alive by TMZ" back when he died. Besides, Bertolucci has stopped working on movies many years ago. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, one of Openlydialectics past oppose rationales was "it's Sweden, it's[sic] politics is irrelevant". Yet it is apparently a huge deal to them that an, at most slightly above, ordinary director (going by the list from GCG above) does not get a blurb propsed in the very first comment while a transormative figure in another field, comic books, did get a blurb? To each their own i guess. Death blurbs are influenced by pop-culture to a degree anyway, looking at Carrie Fisher for example(who really was not even second rate in her field, as much as i love the original Star Wars films) So, really not unprecedented for pop-culture figures to get posted. But Stan Lee at least was a transformative figure in his field. Was Bernardo Bertolucci a transformative figure in the world of cinema or at the very least a towering figure amongst his peers? 91.97.240.14 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Few ref problems, but can be fixed. Very important person in the history of cinema. We need to post it.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ready, too many unreferenced whole paragraphs (for starters).—Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has entire sections that lack inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Stan who? 195.62.68.228 (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cute. Feel free to log in so we know which regular is trolling ITN this time. 162.249.177.146 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And who are you to accuse a spotless IP of trolling? Wakari07 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. In 3 days Wikipedians were more concern about Stan Lee's being published instead of fixing Bertolucci's biography. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN RD is no place for dreamers, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed two paragraphs with blog-level info containing the last "citation needed" tag. I don't see the quality problem. Has been called the last maestro of Italian cinema, since Pasolini, Visconti, Rossellini, Fellini and Antonioni all died earlier. Known for The Last Emperor (9 Oscars, 6th in all-time list; number 3 in the top number-of-Oscar-winning living directors list after Peter Jackson and James Cameron), 1900, Last Tango in Paris, Little Buddha just to name a few. Oh, and The Conformist (1970 film) still gets 98% on the Rotten Tomatometer... Wakari07 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Last Emperor a truly beautiful film. I would agree with you he deserves posting on Main page. What real quality issues remain? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nine paragraphs lacking a single reference, unreferenced awards, unreferenced filmography. Stephen 23:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 106th Grey Cup

 * Oppose an unreferenced bullet pointed list of plays is inadequate (per nomination). There's also some out-of-date prose in the other sections that needs fixing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now I've fixed some of the obvious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two team articles lack inline citations in their "Current roster" sections. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, only the bold linked article is required to be of a high standard. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Needs referenced prose in the 'game summary' section. The rest of the article looks OK. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Update referenced play-by-play has been added, taking care of the issues noted above. Without any other concerns this should be marked as ready. -- Plasma Twa  2  22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fix the Ward dab and illuminate us to who CGY and OTT are in the scoring synopsis, and I think you're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ward dab is taken care of, but I don't understand what you mean with your second point. The scoring summary is in-line with previous Grey Cup and Super Bowl articles. Not sure how it is supposed to be any clearer who those names refer to. -- Plasma Twa  2  00:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just normally think that when people use abbreviations, they should at least explain what they mean. If you don't, that's fine, but not everyone on planet Earth will get CGY and OTT.  The latter usually just means "over the top".  If you don't think that clarifying abbreviations is useful, that's just fine, but it's on you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the context of their use in the article I think it's pretty clear what the two abbreviations refer to. I trust people won't be confused by it given it hasn't come up in the past. I believe this article is ready to be posted. -- Plasma Twa  2  00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, there's no "context" because the abbreviations aren't defined. I trust you'll address that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you went and added the abbreviations yourself, as well as added several notes about missing citations (which I have added). I appreciate your assistance in getting the article ready for posting. -- Plasma Twa  2  01:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, I fitted it in between going through my dead grandfather's effects, because I wasn't getting any traction with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Russians attack and seize Ukrainian ships

 * Comment - Orange tagged. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The first sentence of the blurb, as well as "neutral waters" and the link to "piracy", seems very POV. I know I risk being called a Russian bot but I think this is Wikipedia so NPOV is very important, even if Russia looks very likely be invading.  I suggest be more precise on where the Russian ships seized the Ukrainian ones. -- Patrickov (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire blurb is only one sentence, and the first phrase is literally true. They attacked it in the neutral waters, and that's a violation of the rules-based international order. Although seeing how I am talking to a person who's own profile page on Wikipedia states "Oh yes, I should have told you that I'm no Russian, and instead I'm from Hong Kong." I should probably just not bother. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's, technically, something to be decided by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, not you or me. Do you really believe that Russia would do that without a check of international law first?  This can easily be nuke-attracting if they don't really play the law.  And don't think that such a thing doesn't happen in Hong Kong.  Chinese commies do that all the time:  Just a fortnight ago they are exposed to be occupying land at the HK side of the border. The link.  Anyway I think I should suggest an alternative blurb:  Russian forces seized Ukrainian ships and personnel in the disputed Kerch Strait near Crimea.  And good luck fighting the Russians.  Wish you come back in one piece. -- Patrickov (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added link to the BBC article which seems far more neutral than the one-sided one published by Kyiv Post, and the blurb should be re-worked accordingly. The accusation from Russia that the Ukrainian ships have illegally entered their waters can not be omitted. The escalation of the tensions in the follow-up of the incident has reportedly resulted in protests in front of the Russian embassy in Kiev. My opinion on this is to wait for some time and see how it is going to develop, as it seems the escalation of the tensions will not end here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP is neutral, not bipartisan. The accusation from Russia should be omitted if it's spurious; Russia has no territorial waters in the area. ghost 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shoud be neutral but the blurb is clearly not. If you carefully look at what the media have published about this incident, you will certainly find bipartisan versions of the same story with mutual accusations. The lack of impartial information on what really happened gives this no chance to go on the main page unless it evolves into something more severe.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article is basically incomprehensible at this point. It needs not to be written in gibberish before being posted. On a biased sidenote, editors should not forget that many claim this incident to be a political stunt by Poroshenko before the elections. For example, Ukrainians fully believe they have been engaged in an open war with Russia for the last 4 years (see link) - even though it is not reflected on this Wikipedia in such terms. It is a crazy land where outsiders might easily make false judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adûnâi (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Adûnâi, can you provide a quote form the article you've linked that says: ? The first line of that article literally says: .. Russian direct and indirect use of force against Ukraine. The article's title even not saying there's an open war, it says about aggression. --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article needs extensive editing – for example, president is spelled "preisdent" – and anyway incident seems to be an ongoing polemical political pageant. Unsee any reports of casualties. Sca (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This needs a lot more background information. Crimea (and its annexation by Russia) is central to this story here but was not mentioned until I added a couple lines. We shouldn't presume readers are 100% on international events and need to drop these blue links for context. --M asem (t) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Very important! Ofc need improve!--UkrainianCossack (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I propose the slightly edited version of Patrickov:
 * --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment certainly important enough for ITN, but the article quality isn't there yet, and none of the proposed blurbs are adequate. I'll look into improving the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added ALT1 and ALT2. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * power~enwiki, added ALT3. It's not the Kerch strait that is disputed. It's the Crimea and its waters as a whole. --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support very important event.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. An event like this caused the Vietnam War. -CaptainAhab1841 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.21.113 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Pending the citations needed. Juxlos (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is an important event. Its importance is confirmed by media coverage, wide international reaction and discussing in the United Nations Security Council. However, I think that the reference to the article about piracy should be omitted because the attack on Ukrainian ships was implemented by Russian government armed services but not any pirates. --Sergey Tsvigun (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This event caused an international resonance. It is impossible to ignore it.--AlexKozur (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just a minor regional incident which would be resolved quickly and peacefully. STSC (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still orange-tagged, still not explaining the whole situation, not good enough for the MP. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support major development in a conflict zone, reported worldwide. Article is now well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, a major incident, but hopefully dies down. Renata (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged, out of date, not seeing it "in the news" besides the minor blip it got when it first happened, not ITN-worthy, take it to DYK where anything goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support any of the blurbs. All tags have been fixed as far as I can see, so it's a support on quality; and it was and is front page news, and it's a major violation of international norms which led to an emergency security council meeting, so I also support on notability.  The original blurb could be viewed as biased, which might be a reason not to use it and use one of the alt-blurbs instead; however, the first blurb is also accurate, so I'd support it. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
 * Support per NorthernFalcon above. Yakikaki (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, tags have been fixed by now and the incident prompted the introduction of martial law in Ukraine. Brandmeistertalk  09:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting, I chose the alt2 which is shorter than alt3. Feel free to change. --Tone 09:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. Russia's FSB laid the blame on Ukraine for sparking the clashes, saying their "irrefutable" evidence "will soon be made public". If we can trust Turkey when they dispute a Saudi explanation of a murder, we can trust Russia when they dispute a Ukrainian explanation of a sea incident. w umbolo   ^^^  13:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:IMPARTIAL. The article can attribute opinions, but the blurb should stay succinct and neutral. Brandmeistertalk  15:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Still looks suspiciously like mutual grandstanding for domestic consumption, from which P&P both are benefiting politically. Sca (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abba Kyari

 * Weak oppose it's still marked as a stub even though it's probably start class, but nevertheless very weak in content. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged lead for expansion. At least another couple sentences or so about his background before becoming governor, and what he accomplished in office.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The Rambling Man  and Bagumba, thanks for your comments.  I have expanded the article with more info on his actions during the 1966 counter-coup and added a lead.  Could you take another look? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Formula One World Championship

 * Support. Well sourced and updated, ALTblurb added for ENGVAR purposes ("Mercedes secures" is US Eng). Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with the amendment above. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'season report' section is unreferenced, which I've tagged. There needs to be at least one reference for each race. Once that's addressed the altblurb will be good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's even more an issue for me is that the report isn't finished. It has been expanded following the last race and the season wrap-up.Tvx1 14:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All done, I think - commented on Abu Dhabi and sourced the whole season section. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work, looks good to me. I now support and am marking (ready). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support is ITNR and quality looks good. No opinion on the ENGVAR issues with the blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient prose, ready to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, any chance someone could post this? Been marked ready for eight hours now. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. The image isn't protected yet but can be swapped in when it is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And done. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seven days since the last ITN blurb. I wonder what the record gap is... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Taiwanese referendums

 * Comment - No blurb. No pass. No significance. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose From what I read there's two potential stories here but neither is ITN appropriate. One is that there as a referendum to legalize gay marriage, but that failed to pass . As such, status quo there (and even if it did, it's certainly not first to the party, to speak of, also making it questionable). The second appears to be a result from local elections along this referendum, which the controlling political party, the DPP, lost a lost of local seats, but this was not a national election. We dont usually post local general elections, so I don't see this facet also being appropriate for ITN. --M asem  (t) 15:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe if legalising same sex marriage had passed, it would had been the first in Asia. -- KTC (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, India was earlier this year. Stephen 23:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "India does not recognise same-sex marriage or civil unions." Howard the Duck (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose If I understand this correctly, the referendum on same-sex marriage was non-binding and same-sex marriage is still scheduled to be legal in Taiwan May 24, 2019 if the Legislative Yuan does not take action sooner. Taiwan would be the first in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage, which definitely is significant. However, I don't know if this changes how events will play out and there may be future court challenges or actions in the Legislative Yuan and it also raises the question of civil unions. If indeed the deadline is passed and same-sex marriage becomes legal per the Court-ordered deadline, I think it should be posted to ITN. I admit that Taiwanese law/politics is not my specialty. Can someone confirm if this is indeed non-binding? -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More context -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this made more than enough news both before and after the referendum to support. To say it isn't legally binding would imply that we shouldn't have posted the Brexit referendum either since it wasn't legally binding either, but we not only posted the referendum, we also posted [|the Miller case]. Adding a blurb too. Banedon (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Brexit was something that was well on the radar around the world prior to the public referendum. Even if the ref. vote ended up without passing, we'd likely still have posted it. In contrast, I had never seen any word of this Taiwanese referendum until today. The fact it doesn't change the status quo makes it not a great case for posting as ITN. --M asem (t) 00:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't, but I did, e.g.  . Banedon (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not that I am opposing the significance of the same-sex marriage referendum itself, but it's just one of the three main foci.  Should also mention the change of mayorships (especially Kaohsiung, which would see its first CNP mayor in 20 years), as well as the referendum on nuclear power. -- Patrickov (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The referendum changes nothing. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 10:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The status quo continues. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. Sca (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ambareesh

 * Oppose per the tag on the article, more references are required.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) ICC Women's World Twenty20

 * Comment - Usually the final article is linked. But that is also sparse in writing. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Mens Twenty20 is ITNR and I'd support to curb systemic bias, but there is no prose update in the tournament or the final. (I'm not sure why we get hung up on that, but we do). --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's not true, as I updated it myself about 10hrs before this comment.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support I think the blurb "fourth win" bit is unnecessary, I think there should be more prose update in the "final" article (which is pretty much a stub really), and then it's all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final (which should be the bold link) is barely a stub, whilst 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 has no prose outside the lead. Nowhere near sufficient. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ricky Jay

 * Oppose lots of referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are too many statements that lack inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 10:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment article has seen some improvement on referencing in the past 24 hours but still isn't good enough to post. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ray Hill

 * Oppose This article was tagged a few months ago. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was for a DYK blurb. The RD criteria don't prohibit listing him as a recent death. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the "BLP sources section" tag in the "Awards" section. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose needs more references. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicolas Roeg

 * Oppose Referencing problems, and a line or two should be added to early life to bridge the gap from his birth to the beginning of his career. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has a tag. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No longer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Referencing isn't in the best shape, but good enough to pass. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Directing section has a lot of unsourced statements.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More sources have been added. Perhaps you could mark those of the remaining unsourced statements which you consider sufficiently contentious that they prevent posting. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support still a handful of tags inline tags which need fixing but much better than when I last looked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found one. Now fixed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Sources look adequate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC) p.s. another notable person who had the misfortune to die at the weekend?
 * Support Good enough now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Mary Kom

 * Comment - The 2018 article is bad so would link Mary Kom as the main one. However that also has citation issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which citation issues would you be talking about in Mary Kom? PLease give one two pointers and I will understand... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made a few fixes to Mary Kom and the other highlighted article AIBA World Boxing Championships. Citations seem to be ok to me with a cursory glance in Mary Kom. Please do let me know what the problems are, this entry going stale for weak reasons would be disappointing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say 'this' article, are you talking about Mary Kom?DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was my intent, yes. Also, the other article has been tagged. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please give one or two examples where inline citations needs to be put in Mary Kom. That is the main ITN. I am working on the other one too just now, AIBA World Boxing Championships. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by tagged? It was tagged in ITN or you are saying the other tagged article needs editing? Which one? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mary Kom has over 70 inline citations. Please do let me know what you mean when you say the article doesn't have enough inline citations. I don't want this entry to go stale for no good reasons. Cheers. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are still a few "citation needed" tags in the Mary Kom article. Also, the "Awards and recognition" section does list a few awards that lack sources. When I was talking about the "tag" in the AIBA World Boxing Championship page, I was taking about the orange tag that was at the top of the page. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the citation needed tags. There were 4 of them, I have replaced them with reliable sources. The tag in the AIBA page was for weight categories. After adding the weight categories I removed the tag. So that's sorted too. Now just seeing what to do with the "awards and recognition" section on the Mary Kom page. I think you are mainly taking reference to the National Awards.... since all the international ones are referenced throughout the article. For the national awards, should I just removed the awards for which I can't find any good sources? What do you say? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't the best boxers eventually turn pro? Isn't this sort of like being the minor league baseball hit king? ghost 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think we've ever posted amateur boxing in ITN. Even professional boxing is a bit of a niche sport. This just isn't a big enough deal to merit a blurb. 2018 AIBA Women's World Boxing Championships is a stub. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose amateur boxing story, this is much better suited to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Mick McGeough

 * Oppose Tagged the lead being too short. At a minimum, it should resemble a paragraph and not its current single sentence. Also, WP:NPOV concerns with a bloated controversy section compared to overall size of article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bob McNair

 * Oppose Article needs referencing (has two sections fully unsourced). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged the lead being too short. At a minimum, it should resemble a paragraph and not its current single sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has been tagged. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raed Fares (activist)

 * Support Article is good enough now. Note, I've merged Raed Fares (journalist) and Raed Fares (activist) (as they were about same person), updated the nomination to give credit to article contributors for both of the articles. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have filled in the references, and other than that it's good to go. I've marked this as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betty Bumpers

 * Support, fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good quality article, has been updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyS712 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 05:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Orakzai bombing

 * Oppose stub, not comprehensive, and the comment below about "routine" violence applies here too, I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article barely establishes its notability. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. More likely to fail an AfD than pass here. w umbolo   ^^^  13:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Karachi Chinese consulate attack

 * Oppose purely on quality; there isn't sufficient information to even assess importance yet. We may need to wait until "likely unconnected" is more certain in other sources. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Unfortunately stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a separate attack that happened at the same time in Orakzai, Pakistan, that has killed at least 25. The two attacks don't appear connected yet. --M asem  (t) 03:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize now that 2018 Chinese consulate attack is a better developed target article, and avoids the question about whether the two events were connected. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support that article. w umbolo   ^^^  12:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if we can close a mass-shooting nomination in 3 hours blaming the society in which the tragedy occurred and insisting that such events are "routine", then surely we owe the same to a minor terrorist attack which killed one person in failing state which has several per day and which has surrendered large portions of the country to a terrorist militia right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is ranked 20th on the Fragile States Index, so its no where a failing state. The list you linked mentions no deadly terror attack in Pakistan since July 2018 yet you say "several per day". Also, whats your source to "surrendered large portions of the country to a terrorist militia"? Your comment is grossly inaccurate, baseless and misleading. Even Bloomberg says "Pakistan's terrorist violence has dropped to lowest in more than a decade". The Donkey King (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 178 countries on that list, I'd say #20 is extremely close to a failing state. The list has been neglected since July 2018, but the daily terrorist incidents leading up to that speak volumes for the depravity and violence that are an every day occurrence in Pakistan. Is Waziristan not a large portion? The Taliban are firmly in control. Given that a mass shooting in the US was heaped with scorn and closed in just three hours, it seems reasonable that a non-incident in Pakistan which isn't even in the news should get a similar treatment. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. An "hour long shootout"? Inside? Outside? One person killed? Strip away the reactions section and there is no meaningful content here. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as updater. The article isn't a stub anymore. The Donkey King (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per . The article has been substantially expanded. It's a terrorist attack with high geopolitical significance. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant news. Terrorist attack on Chinese consulate is relatively rare. STSC (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - marked as ready. All oppose votes are based on quality concerns, which have been fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Naulls

 * Support per nom - also an All-American college player. Rikster2 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) CIA/Jamal Khashoggi wiretap

 * Oppose we did this article (a lot). If (if) this is a reality and it's released and independently verified, and if (if) there's some kind of tangible reaction, then we could (could) consider it for ITN (again).  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe they do, but I don't believe it will matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only for the points about, but that this is a claim from a Turkish newspaper that the CIA have that recording. Completely not appropriate for us to include, not even not at ITN. --M asem  (t) 18:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, as the article says, WaPo already previously reported that the CIA concluded that MBS had ordered Khashoggi's assassination. And of course the CIA will make no comment on this latest "leak" from Hürriyet Daily News. The fact that the article has not yet been updated might suggest it's seen as no big surprise. Just to give some context Crown Prince "MBS" is the brother of "KBS", who is Saudi Arabia’s U.S. ambassador. But it's not clear when this phone call was made. What if MBS routinely makes calls like this, about all sorts of people he dislikes, on a daily basis? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just a rumour and makes no material difference to the case. No article update. Also the suggested blurb is terrible <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even if this were true, what does it really mean at this point?--WaltCip (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jose Peralta

 * Support easily good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Olivia Hooker

 * Support Poked around and everything looks good. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Comprehensive, well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Igor Korobov

 * Support full blurb He's probably not very well-known in the west but this is a huge deal, the leader of the foreign intelligence agency of a global superpower. Imagine the reaction if Gina Haspel died tomorrow.64.92.14.4 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Death after a long illness? And a short article to boot. RD is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Global superpower? Russia is a rapidly decaying great power at best, and it's certainly not a global one. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article's inline citations are longer than its content. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 23:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angelica Cob-Baehler

 * Oppose a fair use image approximately one day after she died? Seriously?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't there when I fixed up the article. I removed it under possible copy-vio. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Referencing looks good. It's a bit on the short side, but passable. Challenger l (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ready for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been ready for almost 15 hours. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Cob-Bauhler should be listed before Peralta. They died on the same day. Latest posted goes first if they died on same day.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Fixed. Thanks for the catch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kim Jong Yang election as Interpol president

 * Support if the Kim Jong Yang article can be bought up to scratch. Interpol is a significant enough organisation that its presidential elections are notable. A note on blurb, while the BBC go for "Kim Jong-yang", CNN goes for "Kim Jong Yang". The name is unhyphenated on Interpol's website.  --LukeSurlt c 09:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality (it's a stub) and notability (while an "international organisation" it's a tiny one...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with TRM; there's a certain metonymy that happens with Interpol being attributed the actions of its member agencies - e.g. MI5 investigates... the FBI executes... Interpol didn't really do much. ghost 13:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, once the Kim Jong Yang article is properly updated. An important development, particularly given the unusual circumstances surrounding the departure of the previous Interpol President, Meng Hongwei and the fact that he was widely expected to be succeeded by Russia's candidate, general Alexander Prokopchuk. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM – and because it's getting an ephemeral blast of publicity mainly as a political defeat for the Russian candidate, Alexander Prokopchuk, and by implication for his ultimate boss, Putin. Little practical impact. Sca (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Interpol is an administrative body that serves as a liaison between international police agencies. It has no real law enforcement power.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Historical footnote: During WWII, presidents of Interpol included such sterling characters as Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner. – Sca (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. Interpol is clearly significant enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly has become one of the most over-used words in the English language. Sca (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose not convinced this is sufficiently notable. The organization isn't that big (756 employees in 2013) and the position is largely ceremonial. That this made the news this time is because of the political dimension, which isn't insignificant, but doesn't seem enough to override the afore-mentioned problems. Banedon (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: James H. Billington

 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's got 42 references and is assessed as B-class. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't care if it had 420 references, and the class assessment is meaningless: it's a BLP with paragraphs of unreferenced claims.  You must know we simply won't post something in this state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to personally dismiss the project-wide quality assessment scale, be my guest, but don't expect others to adopt your personal idiosyncrasies.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure I definitely want to dismiss anything below GA as it can be added by anyone without any kind of evidence. But that's a red herring.  This is a BLP violation, I'm a little shocked you didn't know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A BLP violation? Let's keep this in some kind of perspective.  I've added some citations and there are no paragraphs of text without at least one citation now.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My perspective was spot on, it was yours which was shockingly off-base. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of big words to say "I know you are but what am I".  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not “big words”, that’s just a basic reminder of BLP. If you don’t get it, that’s on you, and shocking as you are an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Large amount of unreferenced stuff in this one - whole sections completely without inline citations. Should it be bothering me that some of the references are themselves from the LoC itself's own website? I seem to remember something about primary sources... Challenger l (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The only sections without inline citations are the lists of citations to his works. Are you saying the citations need to be cited themselves?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Nikola Gruevski asylum case

 * Support per nom. Banedon (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Article needs citations and additional c/e before I can say Support.BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article completely unsuitable for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Africa's First High-Speed Train

 * Rather nice story. Support. --Tone 15:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to support this (broadly that the topic is the type of ITN interest) but have questions exactly why this date: Nov 16 seems to be the date the line was inaugurated, and I can't tell if they have actually opened the line for passengers (not testing). Further, the article needs a bunch of tense adjustments since the construction is now all in the past. --M asem  (t) 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not updated sufficiently. Kenitra–Tangier high-speed rail line contains no information since December 2010 in the body of the article.  The lead contains a bare sentence that just says it was completed in 2018.  Needs some expansion work on the building and opening of the line in order to be main page ready.  Presumably, the news sources reported about the opening itself, ceremonies, the first train leaving, etc. etc.  Find those sources, expand the article, and then we can post this on the main page.   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to full support without reservations. Great job on the article improvements.  There is no problem with this appearing on the main page now.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – Per Jayron. Article is far too thin for such a major undertaking. "The project was completed in 2018" – This sentence, offered twice, doesn't constitute a sufficient update. Sca (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - "construction underway"... on the first segment... "It was completed in 2018". The blurb isn't even in the article! I can't update sources with a smart phone, but the 3 refs above can add plenty of updates, along with a tense change as needed. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Tone but I feel like this is the wrong date also (and it should be 15 November, per the article). Banedon (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Response - I've updated the article. The lead should be a lot clearer. I also added a list of stations, clarified the scope of the project, services offered and projected, costs and international partners.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree that alt blurb is better.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this source, the ceremonial opening was all that took place, and regular service has not begun, but is scheduled to before the end of the year. It would probably make more sense to wait until then to post it, with hopefully a better article, especially because the ceremony having taken place on the 15th makes it older than the current oldest story on the main page. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But when that happens it will be argued that it should have been posted now, and/or that it's no longer in the news, or basically stale, etc.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be true, although I doubt it, since opposition is mainly based on article quality. But I don't think the article is even eligible to be posted at this point since events are posted chronologically and there is no longer room for it on the template, so any discussion at this point is pretty much moot. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support on notability (I leave quality to be judged by others). It would be stronger support if it were in Sub-Saharan Africa (but north of South Africa) rather than in Morocco, which is next door to the EU and thus not truly representative of most of Africa (but on the other hand, that's arguably how development often works, slowly spreading out from near the more developed regions). Maybe it's also a bit notable that Africa now has a more advanced railway than anything in the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, where railways began, tho probably also a bit irrelevant as I expect it would be unencyclopedic for our article to say so. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have rewritten the article, and I don't believe quality is a concern anymore. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has been improved. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, Morocco. Weak support; article relies almost entirely on a single publication's articles. w umbolo   ^^^  13:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Withdrew my oppose as the article is indeed improved, though still on the short side. However, I'm not sure about the project's general significance, so I'm not supporting. Sca (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks sufficient now. I think this is indeed notable. Davey2116 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) First ship commissioned for the Kenyan Coast Guard

 * Comment article needs expansion and a copyedit --LaserLegs (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose this feels like just one arm of the Kenyan government. Just like we don't post the creation of ___ ministry in ___ country, this shouldn't be appropriate either. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - better suited to DYK in my opinion. Ultimately this will just represent a part of one country's defence forces. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability, definitely could make DYK if it gets nominated quickly enough... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Thanks for the feedback all. I've expanded it a bit and stuck it into DYK - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Pickering

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerry O'Malley

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - indeed, good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tone (talk • contribs)

(Closed) RD: Alí Rodríguez Araque

 * Oppose referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has been tagged for citation issues. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is unlikely to be improved in time. Alex Shih (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Peryer

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Héctor Beltrán Leyva

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series

 * Comment Can we drop the "Monster Energy" part in the blurb? eg "2018 NASCAR Cup Series" will still be completely recognizable. --M asem (t) 01:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The series is formally called the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series, but I don't really have an objection from dropping the sponsor name.  Dough   4872   01:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know its formally called that title, but given that the sponsorship of the event has changed, but otherwise is the "NASCAR Cup Series", I'd rather see us drop the forced commercial if we can. --M asem (t) 01:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the sponsor should not be mentioned in the blurb. Is it normal to even put sponsors in the article title? One mention in the lead should be sufficient. For example, our articles are at IndyCar Series (not Verizon IndyCar Series), The Oval (not Kia Oval) etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in fine shape, prose summaries of races are sufficient, everything is well referenced. Prefer Altblurb for the same reasons noted above.  The year is obvious (cuz we're in that year) and the sponsorship is ephemeral and inconsequential.  This is the NASCAR Cup championship, and any additional text is unneeded here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost ready. The race reports look good, but the 'changes' section is largely unreferenced, as are several of the tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added another altblurb, which specifies the type of racing and avoids WP:COMMONALITY problems. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose that pesky orange tag needs to be addressed before this can go to the main page. Generally looks okay though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added additional sources to the article.  Dough   4872   19:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Wow. Need a few more in the manufacturers section before it's good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added additional sources to the manufacturers section.  Dough   4872   22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jennie Stoller

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) George III's health
May somebody please help me with the format. Here is the link to my source. https://people.com/royals/palace-releases-hamilton-king-george-iiis-mental-health-records/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainAhab1841 (talk • contribs)
 * I think you're misunderstanding this story (the People headline is misleading, so it's their fault rather than yours). We've known for decades that his condition was Porphyria, as it's a hereditary condition and the genetic markers appear in his descendants; what was published last week was the details of the treatments that were tried. This is a non-story. &#8209; Iridescent 22:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * George III's health I've heard rumors that he is not well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Alyque Padamsee

 * Oppose per nom, too much unreferenced material, including nothing citing those all-too-important "Awards". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. Why do people keep suggesting articles that are clearly not fit to be in In the news? &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there might be people willing to do the work to fix up citations and the like, if they are notified that the topic could be in the ITN box. --M asem (t) 03:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a good example was Richie Benaud whose article was nowhere near ready when nominated, but was improved by a bunch of people to get it ready for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, if every confirmed death is a good faith nom regardless of article quality, why not create an automatic ITN nom as items are added to Deaths in 2018? Alternatively, if I went out and did this manually, would that be seen as pointy, bad faith, or otherwise bad form? I ask out of legitimate curiosity; I have no preference one way or the other. ghost 15:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that'd be fine by me, but you'd soon run out of energy. I'd be happy to oppose every such nomination unless it was ready for the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It'd also clog up this page unnecessarily, thus wasting everybody's time, etc. If nobody cares enough about a death to bother nominating it, that looks like a rather good reason for keeping it off the front page.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Baker

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in there right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you chuck a ref at that last sentence in the "Early life ... " section, then we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted: good work all - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) San Juan submarine wreckage

 * Weak oppose - the update in the prose is one poorly constructed sentence, the update to the lead is even more than that. Needs a little more before it can be considered suitable for the main page, notability is there however.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That has been fixed and fleshed out by now. Brandmeistertalk  14:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support now it's been filled out a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support pending some further expansion of the article. Important, interesting news with further developments on the line Openlydialectic (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Not sure how much more can be added. Supporting mainly because the sinking was posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But note that an anon IP (geolocating to Bulgaria?) at Talk:ARA San Juan (S-42) is now disputing the authenticity of this claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources such as the linked The New York Times & BBC News articles, not a Twitter account with a total of 4 tweets (all from today). -- KTC (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 *  Weak oppose Comment – Sunken wrecks are always interesting, but the finding of this 33-year-old sub a year later in very deep water (by a commercial search firm to be paid $7.5 million) doesn't seem very significant. Sca (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Final resolution to a major maritime mystery and national tragedy. The article looks to be in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The significant coverage this received when it occurred is neatly book-ended by its resolution. Maritime wrecks of this lethality aren't all that normal nowadays. Chetsford (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures)

 * Comment - Please specify a blurb and source for above. Otherwise it will get ignored. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article would need expansion to be considered. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . There has been much added since your comment, and the editor working on it is continuing that expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It's in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the article, hard to believe it didn't exist until yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done, the article is in a good shape now. Posting. --Tone 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post posting Support Can I suggest using the image of the painting by the blurb? yorkshiresky (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post posting Support Presumably fair use of the image extends to the Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, fair use does not extend to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a logical reason for that? (Presumably that also means it could never appear at TFA). Would an image of Hockney be suitable instead (except that we don't have one, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the Foundation's requirement to keep fair-use to a minimum, fair-use is only allowed in article space (WP:NFCC). This has been the case for many years.  It's unfortunate we don't have a free image of Hockney, but he has been a very private person for a long time, so I suppose it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * and I can buy/beg/steal a box of crayons and put together an adequate rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only more for the TFA idea, a picture of the Case Study House that inspired this painting would be a fair free-license replacement. I wouldn't use such for ITN (too many additional words to explain the connection) but in a TFA blurb, there's room to discuss the house as inspiration. --M asem  (t) 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To Martin, yes it would not be eligible to appear at TFA, which is quite often the case as to why TFA sometimes runs without an image. While it's a requirement of FAC to have at least one image, it can be a fair use image which cannot subsequently be used on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is best that there isn't an image of the painting or anything related to it in the "In the news" section, because once someone reads that the odds are probably quite high that they are going to click through just to have a look at the painting. It is presented well at the page, which is being improved and added to at a rapid rate. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not allowing fair-use material on the Main Page is a stupid rule that prioritises licence-free content over building an encyclopaedia. Main Page is in article space anyway. Whenever anyone points that out they get shouted down with an WP:AAJ, but the practice been in place so long that inertia has fixed it in place. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, and maybe a discussion at the WikiProject visual arts talk page could also get more input and strategic information comments about how to "make it so". Front page use isn't a constant presence, so it's not a permanent usage of a copyrighted image. The Picture of the Day section would, of course, gain the most of such an extension of fair use, and open the door to information-sharing about many historical artworks (viewing and describing Guernica, some of Frida Kahlo's paintings, and thousands of others would be quite beneficial to Wikipedia readers). Thanks for raising this question. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the main page would strongly benefit from being able to use such fair use images. This isn't the place to discuss that really, we should find a more central location to thrash that out (and not a Wikiproject either).  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The logical way to discuss it seems to be by creating a new section at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content (and pinging those involved here, except me as I know nothing about the issue), as a Redirect ensures that Talk page covers suggested changes to both Non-free content (including Non-free content) and to Non-free content criteria (including WP:NFCC, which you might want to try to change to say "and only in article namespace, including the Main Page"). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the reason we don't have non-free allowed on the main page came originally from Jimmy Wales circa 2007, which afterwards led to the formation of the basis of our current non-free content policy (specific in limiting non-free to main space. Main Page is considered a portal, I understand from these discussions. See from 2013 and links included in that. --M asem  (t) 23:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Zhores Medvedev

 * Oppose wrong date, mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: William Goldman

 * Support once deficiencies are addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Refimprove tag is justified at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge leaders guilty of genocide

 * Comment trying to check refs in BLP articles is tough when the refs are print books and no page number is in the citation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Nuon Chea article has about 1/3 of it's content from a single source, a compilation of excerpts from "Soviet Archives" by a guy named Dmitry Mosyakov. The link at yale.edu is dead, but if you Google the exact title you'll find PDFs from alternate sources. The content in question isn't mundane either, I think it should be stricken if the article is posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Khieu Samphan is better, nothing really outrageous in it. There is a lot sourced to "A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide: Portraits of Evil and Good." but without page numbers (I don't have access to a university library to check them anyway). Still it's probably ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The tribunal article itself has a pile of detail about the administrative organization of the tribunal which I don't think matters that much. I had to orange tag the list of judges, and added a few CNs here and there. The details about the individual defendants seem ok. I didn't read the controversies section yet, it's late here. If you post this, the tribunal should be the only bold link and needs cleaning up first. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I added multipled citations to the tribunal article and removed some unsourced information. As for the biographies, they seem ok to me, although not close to GA status or anything like that. I have no preference whether the tribunal or the biographies are bolded. --Pudeo (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. An important (though long-delayed) conviction of a major genocide. Could we get a link to Cambodian genocide into the blurb somewhere? I've not had time to assess the updates or article quality. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits; I think that war crimes convictions are generally notable. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - genocide convictions are notable starship.paint ~  KO   03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. This seems really only a technicality. As I understand it, they are both already serving life for crimes against humanity. This genocide conviction merely covers the small fraction of their victims who were not ethnically Cambodian (such as Vietnamese, etc). Even if it were nevertheless deemed notable it might then be quite difficult to get a blurb that does not mislead our readers by overstating the importance of the event, thus damaging Wikipedia by giving some of our readers the impression that we use misleading clickbait. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just disagree with the clickbait-thing as it was the #1 news article on BBC's frontpage when I posted it. It's true that they have already been serving a life sentence since 2014 for crimes against humanity, but the genocide convction is notable as well and also the main question of this UN-supported tribunal. Previously it also has been opinionated that it wasn't a genocide. Actually, the BBC article that's linked has a chapter on "Why is the genocide verdict significant?" --Pudeo (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not some of our readers get the impression that it is clickbait will have nothing to do with what the BBC news website looked like 2 days earlier, since they will not be aware of that. And just because the BBC claims that its own story is significant doesn't necessarily mean that it is, let alone that it is ITN-worthy (which the BBC story presumably does NOT claim, even for posting at the time, let alone for posting two days later), nor that our readers will see it as such (nor that we need see it as such). Indeed the very fact that the BBC have to explain why it is supposedly significant suggests that they realize that many of their readers will understandably not see it as significant (and they can explain that in their news items more easily than we can do so in our articles, as they don't have to be NPOV, RS-based NOR, and encyclopedic - it would be totally unencyclopedic, POV, and OR for us to try to tell our readers why this story is ITN-worthy, if only because there will not be a single RS discussing whether it is ITN-worthy). Meanwhile quite likely we have another reason for not posting, namely that it's gone stale. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per the BBC's section on why this is significant. Banedon (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Sri Lankan constitutional crisis

 * Comment this is already the top story at ITN. This will, once it finally gets to the bottom, be reassessed at the time and added to Ongoing automatically should the admin doing the update decide to do so.  Do we need this nomination as well as all that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that, if any future updates to this story occur, the blurb will be bumped to the top again as well as updated. We have never allowed that sort of treatment for any other ongoing event. In any case, the ITN photo has been the same person (on and off) for a while now (with Stan Lee to briefly interrupt), and I'm a little leery about having another Lugo on the main page. WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So part of your concern is that you're tired of seeing the picture?? There're scripts that can hide it for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have bumped items whose blurbs have changed notably during running. But we don't have to.  And as this moves down the page, it'll gravitate into Ongoing.  Why wouldn't we apply this same logic to the forest fires?  That hit the news again today, "California wildfires: Number of missing leaps to 631" which significantly changes the landscape on that story.  So should we re-work the hook, bump it up, or put it in Ongoing until the fires are handled?  It looks no different to the Sri Lanka situation.  And you could argue the same about the Ebola story..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing the blurb and dropping this into ongoing now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would we do that? It's easy to change the blurb should anything major happen.  It doesn't mean the blurb needs bumping back to the top.  Just let it run its course.  As far as I know, we've never demoted an article to Ongoing from blurb like that.  If you do this, then you should do the same with the fires in Americuh too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until the blurb rotates off; if the situation is still fluid at that point, and the article receiving frequent updates, then it can move to ongoing. If there's a genuine need to replace the blurb with a different one (rather than tweaking the originally-posted one) then start a new nomination here. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Leave the blurb to naturally reach the bottom and be obscured, then if the issue is still in the news, nominate for Ongoing, that's how we do it normally and no convincing reason to do otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Renomination for ongoing is not necessary for all cases; Khashoggi was shifted down without a renom for example. (per WP:ITN: Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis.)  Spencer T• C 15:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can agree renomination is not necessary but my main point still stands. We don't pull blurb just to convert it to Ongoing, we let it to reach the bottom, unless it's found not worthy of posting in the first place. Also Khashoggi's case was first posted to Ongoing then changed to Blurb after significant turn of events and a new nomination. So there's quite difference here. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (once the blurb rotates off) Looking at the situation on the ground there it looks like there is no solid resolution in sight as of yet. There are still Supreme Court decisions on the events to be handed out in over a months time. Looks like there is still a month or two of this still to play out.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (once the blurb rotates off) per Blackknight12. Crisis is still clearly ongoing and article is still being regularly updated. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Update this was posted to ongoing by here. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Proposed redefinition of SI base units

 * Wait It hasn't happened yet, it's only expected to happen later today. Wait until it has happened for sure. TheMrP (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pending vote outcome Article is in good shape outside the result of the vote (and presumably if voted for, it will be moved to "Redefinition of SI base units"). Interesting fundamental science news we don't get to post much about. --M asem (t) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pending vote outcome and R.I.P. to Le Grand K. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly we need to adjust RDs so we can nominate non-living objects for it. --M asem (t) 01:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD per Masem. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Question I grew up in a metric country, I still find this Good Article to be somewhat inaccessible. Reading it, the definition of a second and a meter are essentially unchanged but the definition of a Kilogram "the current definition defines the kilogram as being the mass of the international prototype kilogram, which is an artefact and not a constant of nature, whereas the new definition relates it to the equivalent mass of the energy of a photon given its frequency, via the Planck constant. " What the hell does that mean? The Planck constant? an "international prototype kilogram"? WTF? If this is adopted, is a kilogram of potatoes going to be larger or smaller than it is now or so negligible that it doesn't matter to anyone who isn't trying to measure the mass of a single molecule? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The kilogram is currently defined as the mass of a standard block of metal. See fourth paragraph. Planck's constant is a fundamental constant of nature, and it's related to the energy of a photon by the relation E = hf (E = energy, f = frequency, h is the Planck's constant). If this is adopted, you're not going to notice any differences. The changes are too small to be measurable without highly sophisticated apparatus. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC article has a good summary: right now, the only way to confirm the kg is to go to Paris to check against that weight (the Le Grand K). By switching the system to the Planck constant - which can be measured by anyone with a specific type of electromagnetic balance - then all other factors can be used to derive the kg. --M asem (t) 02:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for your explanation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support. A historic moment in the history of measurement. w umbolo   ^^^  06:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support after proposal is accepted and article moved for the reasons mentioned above. Regards So  Why  08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support upon actual change, not just proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and others: the vote today is a formality; although a necessary part of the process, there is no realistic chance that it will be rejected.  Waiting for the completion is like waiting for a U.S. president-elect to take the formal oath at the inauguration, or waiting for Meghan Markle to say "I do".  It's perfectly fine to have the event on the main page before that moment. (P.S. the webcast is live!) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Formality or not, it has not yet happened, so let's just wait for the change to actually happen. And btw, we did wait for Markle to say "I do" Regards  So  Why  10:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The vote is being called right now... as expected, it has passed. (Unanimous except Kazakhstan, which is absent.)  Draft Resolution A redefining the SI units of mass (kg), temperature (K), electrical current (A), and quantity of matter (mole) has passed.  209.209.238.149 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then there appears to be sufficient consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but I've added an altblurb which I think is clearer. Should the article be renamed to remove 'proposed' now the motions have passed? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt blurb for economy of writing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A reminder: the article needed to be updated, it was not outside of changing a bit of the lede. I have added the necessary text and an updated source in the prose so no need to pull, but please make sure to check that when we pre-approve pending the necessary update, the update is actually there and sourced. (A few cn's have been added since but that's post-posting, and they're not significant glaring problems). --M asem (t) 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A sudden thought: wasn't the vote by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, not just the International Committee for Weights and Measures? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the committee is the body, and the conference is the meeting of said body; the committee voted at the conference. That's how I read the opening paragraph of the bolded article.  The committee met at the conference, and voted on the proposal.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I read that differently, as the committee proposed a resolution at the conference, which was voted on by all delegates (a lot more people than just the committee). I might be wrong though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I need to get all my gold bars reweighed and stamped with their newly defined weights? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just send them through to me, I can get all that arranged for you, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because within the significant digits of your measuring devices, it doesn't vary enough to change the measurements. My understanding is that this removes the need to update these definitions because they were formerly tied to the mass of the Kilogram, which being an actual, physical object (that is, an actual chunk of metal kept in a room in Paris), the definitions floated based on the variations in the mass of that chunk of metal.  While that chunk of metal was quite stable, nothing is infinitely stable, and since it's mass would drift slightly over time, it would require re-definitions of the units (and of a bunch of constants based on those units).  The new definition pegs the unit meaning to that of the constants, and obviates the need to compare to a single chunk of metal in Paris. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Change "the units" to "the SI base units". These are not run-of-the-mill units, they have a history. w umbolo   ^^^  14:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm less happy with the alt blurb because the units haven't been redefined yet, technically that doesn't happen until May 2019. I'd still prefer something along the lines of confirms new definitions as originally proposed. Adpete (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Request to change already posted blurb goes to WP:ERRORS. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) New supra-kingdom of eukaryotes: Hemimastigophora

 * Weak Oppose due to the link being a DAB page and, also, the complete absence of a blurb; my !vote auto transitions to Support upon resolution of those issues. Chetsford (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom linked to the wrong things. I have fixed it as best I can. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, due to insufficient updating of any article. One wonders how it will be possible to say much more than, "little protists turn out to be a sister clade of the Plants+HC+SAR megagroup based on their DNA." Abductive  (reasoning) 02:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Hemimastigophora should no longer be a redirect and that article should be created, and then that should be the target article, but the article created would probably still be quite stublike until further research is published. So I guess weak oppose unless an expert can write that article quickly EdwardLane (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Brexit resignations

 * Oppose I don't see the update anywhere in the target article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait like I said at WT:ITN, until May is removed or both sides vote on a deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ongoing, since this will drag out for a while and constantly make news while at it. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post domestic political activities as a rule. If she is forced out then I would support. Otherwise this bickering over Brexit has been going on and will continue, up to and probably beyond the actual withdrawal date. That of course will be posted assuming article quality is up to snuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait If May goes this will obviously be postable, but let's face it, the majority of those resignations were PPSs that no-one had ever heard of. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just the usual Brexit-stuff. Unless it's the PM resigning, it's not really news. Regards So  Why  08:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose would only support a change in Prime Minister or a parliamentary rejection of the deal, everything else is fluff and noise. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Typical everyday story about Brexit. There is also nothing to wait for here, hope someone will do the needful. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not an ITN worthy thing. Sorry...-- M h hossein   talk 13:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Roy Clark

 * Support - . Proprietor of the Empty Arms Hotel and also launched Branson, MO concept. May you pleasures be many, your troubles be few. CoatCheck (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article needs significant work to referencing in numerous main text sections, filmography, TV shows, awards etc. - Dumelow (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret per Dumelow. Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me, Deep Dark Depression- Excessive Misery, If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all, Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article needs to have more inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Swedish general election

 * Wait – For the culmination of the issue, presumably with formation of a new government. Sca (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seemed like he never had a chance, which makes this more or less expected. I'd support the successful formation of government (given the totality of circumstance, including that we did not post the elections). ghost 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, this just prolongs the existing situation i.e. it's a failed proposal. Maybe there would be a blurb here if/when a government is actually formed, but this is just more political manoeuvring. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looking at the archives I see we didn't post the election results in September due to the inconclusive result, and per Modest Genius I think we should continue to wait until the negotiations conclude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's Sweden, it's politics is irrelevant Openlydialectic (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "its politics"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant to the Swedes, at any rate. Sca (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added an alt blurb that works in the general election link. p  b  p  03:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Mario Suárez (singer)

 * Oppose two-sentence micro-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Lucho Gatica

 * Comment: Needs serious work to referencing before it can be considered. There is only one inline citation in the whole article.  There is no reference even for his death - Dumelow (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and potentially listed under the wrong date if the article is to be believed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs references first, before considering to assess quality. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caroline Rose Hunt

 * Support - Indeed. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good enough. The main sources were dead links but I ran the internet archive bot over it which has remedied that - Dumelow (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been marked ready for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert London

 * Comment: Article looks good, there are two bare refs in the list which I assume can quickly be fixed. I note  one source for his death says he "died on Saturday" (ie 10 November) but the article (and second source) states he died on 11 November? Would like to see that fixed or the ambiguity noted in the article before posting - Dumelow (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: One the assumption that the two bare urls in the references will be fixed before posting - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks well referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been marked for attention for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kyrsten Sinema elected to the US Senate

 * Strong oppose Election limited to subnational division with commonplace delayed result announcement. Identity of anyone below the head of a branch of national government is an irrelevant matter for WP:ITN. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nom please withdraw. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Strongly recommend that this good faith nom be withdrawn. WaltCip (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose Good faith nom, but we posted the midterms when they happened, (and they're still up in fact). We're not going to post the last races from the midterms to be called. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Pearson

 * The entire update appears to be "On November 12th, 2018, David Pearson passed away from an illness." No source, incorrect "th" in the date, and a WP:EUPHEMISM for death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been updated now, although the cause of death hasn't been confirmed yet. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: It has GA status and the above issue seems to have been resolved. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per GA, but wait for better update (currently it reads "Pearson died on November 12, 2018 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The news was announced by Wood Brothers Racing; no other details were available.") --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article good to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Bali Nine member Renae Lawrence to be released

 * Oppose parochial interest, nothing ground-breaking about someone being released after a period of incarceration. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The international interest comes from the execution of two members of the Bali Nine by firing squad.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't interesting, but it's not ground-breaking or ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, link rot has taken hold I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OHNO! Ran the, which repaired six links.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the conclusion of a sentence. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Need a full stop?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted): Death of Stan Lee

 * Comment now then, loathe as I am to bring this up, this guy is almost certainly blurbable ("transformative figure"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding corroborating source beyond TMZ. --M asem (t) 18:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD and Support blurb Article is in good shape (well-sourced). As TRM said, this is a rare entertainment figure that is known worldwide and is blurb-worthy. --M asem (t) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blurb added, image sent for protection cascade tagging assuming we end up with blurb. --M asem (t) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Image is now properly protected should blurb be posted. --M asem (t) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and RD. He certainly was a transformative figure in his field and article is well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Very significant and saddening. Article is in good shape. Spengouli (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as long as the Bibliography section is referenced, some things in there need inline cites. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an overarching link (Currently ref 84 as I Read it) to the Grand Comics Database that is being used to cover those all. I think that's okay? --M asem (t) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Transformative in his field. I hope he filmed a ton more cameos for Phase 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both article is in good shape, important person Abequinn14 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is determined this should be a blurb, that's where it will go, not in both places. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying if the blurb fails to get support (which doesn't seem to be the case right now) I support a RD. Abequinn14 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb with image I don't think I read a single comic book since I was like 12, so I can say I am unbiased in this regard. And I understand that his influence on the culture of both XXth and XXIst centuries was enormous. Definitively deserves a blurb per importance. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seriously, what are you waiting, Avengers 9? --159.153.60.78 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Much-loved personality. Article in unusually good shape.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb no where near the level of notability that should be reserved for blurbs. RD is perfectly fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, transformative figure in comic books, legendary arch-father of the biggest film franchises in history. Blurb is no doubt at all.  Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So many fields, so many transformative figures, so perfectly suited for RD. Don't worry TRM, I'm outnumbered, this will be a blurb ... and for the next two weeks every half assed article that's important to someone will get the "We posted Stan Lee so we have to post this" treatment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't think so. I'm not American, I'm not a comic book (or comic movie) fan, but I think this passes the test. I'm afraid that now no-one will listen to you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Capitalistroadster. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb with image. There is a clear consensus. A somewhat longer blurb might be used&mdash;I would recommend mentioning a couple of the characters he created, though I'd hate to get bogged down in a debate over which particular ones to use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could mention "and chairman emeritus of Marvel Comics", avoids the question of which characters to include but more where he fell in the world. --M asem (t) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, Stan Lee is Stan Lee. No embellishment required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping you around to handle this? Consensus is clear, and the article looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Image please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bang. Admin magic.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Less than an hour to blurb someone? I don't think even Stephen Hawking was posted this fast. WaltCip (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because most Americans have never heard of Hawking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe because we Americans take better care of our biographies than you Brits? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it was more about consensus than quality. And Hawking is luminary, Lee is contemporary, as you know.  Apples and pears.  But good attempt at the old USA USA USA bullshit!  Next up we'll be giving Wikipedia editors guns to ensure American articles are up to scratch!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

{Stale) RD: Ananth Kumar
style="color:#8B008B;">Talk ]] 04:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first half of the article is ok. The second half is... wow.  Some of the most genuinely awful proseline I've seen in recent memory. "2. Over 44 cr hot, tasty and nutritious meals have been served to children till end of AY 2018. (May 2018)" indeed. —Cryptic 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are unsourced statements even in the first half of the article. The second half is ... yeah, well. Black Kite (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The front page is not the place for poorly-written articles that do not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin [[User talk:Susmuffin| <span
 * Oppose while clearly improved from when the preceding comments were made, the article still needs copyediting by a native English speaker as it's not suitable for main page at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The article has improved, although it can get better. Breakfastisready (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Douglas Rain

 * Oppose poorly referenced stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the news is not the place for stubs that do not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Johnson (running back)

 * Support A couple of very minor sentences that need citing (sorry, I know nowt about Rugby League in armour), but this is generally a good article. I fixed the bare URL. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I like the sound of his name. And I learned something about Michigan rushing records. I'm still not sure I know what rushing is, but I've cited the part about him doing it better in one game than any Wolverine ever has. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Overall decent shape article. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Day X plot

 * Oppose unless confirmed (and maybe even if confirmed, depending on details). Banedon (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose almost stale, and "first reports" is barely a timely event anyhow; perhaps try WP:DYK. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Second Congo ebola outbreak

 * Comment surely if this is as serious as it seems, it should be an "ongoing" item? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a story that gets updated, but not necessarily on a daily basis. I do see the article seems to be kept up to date, so it could be ongoing, but I see no issue with a blurb either and maybe downgrade to ongoing once it falls off? --M asem (t) 17:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, so support as there's a real risk this could become a huge issue, and is an order of magnitude more significant than the forest fires. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "No other epidemic in the world has been as complex as the one we are currently experiencing." Granted Oly Ilunga Kalenga may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but it's still a major crisis deserving of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as long as the blurb is changed to make grammatical sense. Should be e.g. More than 200 people suffer from a second outbreak of ebola in Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018, making it the largest such outbreak in the country's history. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed -200 + deaths (350+ cases though tracked) --M asem (t) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the blurb should mention that 200 deaths happened over a period of time (since August). The current blurb gives the impression that 200 people died yesterday. --ASF23 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Added that date. --M asem (t) 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this is best suited for the Ongoing section? The outbreak isn't finished, and the new blurb sounds weird. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe move to ongoing once it bumps off the bottom of the news - if it is not under control at that time (which unfortunately sounds likely). EdwardLane (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Melbourne stabbing

 * Support based on historical significant of the attack and quality of article given how recently the attack occurred. (note: I also updated the blurb to bold the like to the article) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The weakest of possible opposes A seemingly lone wolf operation that ends up only killing one is not really that big a story. I know they said the man may have had a larger plan (with propane tanks) and was a person of intereest before, but still, this ended up with minimal harm. But that said, I'd not be against this being posted, just feel this is where the hypothetical MINIMUMDEATHS should be considered even if it was terrorism related --M asem (t) 06:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment seems that knives are the weapon of choice for homicide in Australia. Sadly these things will continue until Australia implements some meaningful knife control laws. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Though admittedly, 86 knife murders in Australia in 2017 compared to the USA's 1,591 means that the USA's total per capita is still around 50% higher... Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The US is just a murderous country, with 17,250 a year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you two talking about the USA? I was just pointing out Australias knife murder rate for some context regarding this article. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – On significance. Sca (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant enough. And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A relatively minor attack. Tragic for those affected, but we can't post every murder around the world. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose One fatality, little significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I really don't like the nominator's argument. We already have a systemic bias, and this way of dealing with it is counter-productive. A day before this attack, this prison riot in Tajikistan resulted in 27 deaths, and it was also inspired by ISIS. Being terrorism-related may be DYK material, but it's not always appropriate for ITN. w umbolo   ^^^  16:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose just not that noteworthy, and the frankly that blurb could apply to anywhere in London on every third day of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Hoy

 * Support - Long enough. Sourced. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support just about satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Paul Conaboy

 * Weakest oppose this is borderline stub for me, for someone with 40+ years in law, some of it at a relatively high level, the bio is lacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I found a little more to add but not much.  I'll keep an eye open for any new info in the obits - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakest support just about enough I guess, and what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis

 * Oppose on article quality ; also none of the blurbs seem neutrally phrased. I might support on notability once this is cleaned up. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb really needs to mention Sri Lanka in there somewhere. Of the ones suggested so far, the first altblurb is the least bad. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support- huge news, and goes to show the pro-american bias on Wikipedia. Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately, while the announcement of a coup in an asian country is basically ignored. Shame. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not that this isn't important, but we also look to article quality, and this one has a neutrality tag at the very top, which we cannot post with that still there. --M asem  (t) 14:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? It was just pointed out in multiple comments that the U.S. mid-term elections were considered general elections via ITN/R and were not the only instance of such elections being posted to ITN. I'm having a hard time not believing at this point that you're just fishing for a reaction.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , stop with this demagogy. You know full well that the results we had posted before were from countries that were pairlamentary democracies (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom) and where aforementioned legislative elections therefore determined who was going to become "the real" head of state, they determined who was going to be in the executive branch. The United States is not a legislative elections, so comparing the recent US case with postng elections from the UK or Germany is misleading, and I refuse to believe you don't understand that. You do, you are just not interested in anything but furthering your biases. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I already know posting this article on the main page is not important to you at all, because you haven't yet fixed the article so it could be posted. You're just here to stir up trouble, and aren't really concerned that Wikipedia properly covers Asian topics.  And I know this because if that was a concern of yours, you'd have actually done something useful about it, and cleaned up this article so we could post it.  If you had already fixed the article, it would have already been in the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * notwithstanding the education provided to you above by admin Jayron, I honestly don't think you seem to understand how this process works. The article is tagged with a POV banner, that needs resolving before it can posted to the main page, that's an actual rule.  Secondly, you claim "Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately" yet a cursory glance reveals it wasn't posted "immediately", but 15.5 hours after nomination.  Thirdly you don't appear to have noticed that it was an WP:ITNR which meant that all assessments were purely based on quality, and nothing to do with perceived significance.  If you need any assistance understanding the ITN process in either this, or any other such case, don't hesitate to give me a shout.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has become too tiresome for me to edit it, at least for now, which is why I haven't fixed it. However I will say that seeing how all 3 of you were triggered by my assertion of existance of pro-american bias on wikipedia, it just goes to show that this assessment was indeed correct and is also largerly unfixable seeing how even a mention of such bias triggers a large chunk of wikipedia's editor base Openlydialectic (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, four of us responded (not three), and I think mostly it was just to correct all the various errors in your assertions. Great response though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM accused of pro-American bias - is this a first?  Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well indeed, it sums up the absurdity of the initial accusation quite nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This situation is significant enough for the main page and should be posted when the article quality concerns are addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment sadly it looks like a bit of a drive-by tagging, the tagger stating "too many problems to list currently" which isn't helpful. The tag ought to be removed until the problems are concisely identified, otherwise this is a stalemate situation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, first I'd like to "thank" those editors kvetching about the process (and accusing me of drive-by tagging) without doing a damn thing about the very obvious issues. Clearly none of the blurbs are acceptable, yet none of the people claiming "bias" have improved them.  Second, is "dissolving parliament" by one of the two rival camps really the news-worthy event here, or should this be "ongoing"?  Third, the NPOV issues should be pretty obvious, the sourcing on "Rajapaksa presidency" isn't good enough to support "increasingly authoritarian", the timeline section is a list of news stories with no particular concern for importance, "Bribing with cabinet positions" doesn't reflect that section's content, and the "Reactions" section is lousy even as far as those lousy sections go. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And neither 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nor Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka makes clear which of the many odd actions in the past 2 weeks violate that amendment, as is asserted in the first two blurbs. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, what you did was drive-by tagging as you had enough time to tag and start a section but yet failed to list a single actionable item. Some of those interested in posting this may have benefitted from a clear description of the problems.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If I had the time yesterday to list every issue with the article, I would have fixed it myself. If they can't read the article, why should I trust them to write it? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not really about you, your standards, what or who you trust, it's about informing the editing population where you thought POV issues existed. Of course, doing what you did was precisely what I said, stalemate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Power~enwiki thanks for improving the article, but I have to agree, I think it would have better had you made a clear list to all the problems when tagging the article. I knew there were many problems with the article, but I have been out-resourced this whole time, nor could I keep up with the fast pace of the changing events. But had there been a list I could have focused on fixing those issues when I got back. Having said that, its looks like the article has gone through some changes thanks to User:Power~enwiki, User:LaserLegs and User:Openlydialectic. Are there anymore issues you would like to address?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article could use about 6 hours of skilled copy-editing; the timeline sections are disjointed at best. 's comment about how there aren't many sources from Sri Lanka is also accurate; unfortunately I'm not sure anyone here can read Sinhala or Tamil.  Finally, this still seems like an "ongoing" event rather than the (disputed) dismissal of parliament being notable on its own. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ill do some more editing today when I have the time. But just on comment, the The Daily Mirror is referenced at least 19 times. However Ill make sure to include more variety of Sri Lankan sources too. Hopefully we can get this out today.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Question can someone help me with the "Recent events" section, it looks like it was copied almost word for word from it's only source: a BBC article. I don't know if I should tag it for copyvio or if it paraphrases enough or if more refs could save it or what. Feedback welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Same with the alleged assassination attempt. The article says "Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and replacing them with those loyal to him." and the NYT article it refs says "Mr. Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and stacking them with loyalists.". Is this a concern? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's bad enough to require revdel, but it should be fixed (and should I just assume that everything that's unsourced and awkwardly written is in that BBC or NYT article?) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was surprised that the ref supported that remark, honestly. You'll have to check them all. I'll get out of your way, have some yard work to do. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article about this crisis has two noted problems about it. That is a lot, especially for an article that we are considering posting to the home page. Furthermore, I do not know how relevant this crisis is to begin with. According to Parliament of Sri Lanka: "The President of Sri Lanka has the power to summon, suspend, prorogue, or terminate a legislative session and to dissolve the Parliament. President can dissolve Parliament only after the lapse of 4 1/2 years or if 2/3 majority of Members of Parliament requests him." While I am no expert on Sri Lankan politics, that other article makes things like this seem quite routine. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alternate Side Parking This parliament has only been in session since September 2015, thats only just over 3 years.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support seems obvious, massive event. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A good work by Blackknight12 and massive event .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a few problems with the article. There are two timelines, they need to be merged, and turned into coherent paragraphs. There is a "recent events" section in the "background" section which makes no sense. Still a number of CN tags and it needs a copyedit for grammar. More importantly though I'm not really seeing widespread coverage of this (before you stomp on my throat, that was enough to kill the Indian nuclear sub story in a few short hours) and even though I've read the article a few times, I still don't understand the problem here: an unpopular former president was made prime minister? Why? So what? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done some more editing and cleaned up the article. FYI the problem here is not that an unpopular former president was made prime minister, but they way in which he was appointed, the blatant disregard for the law and the multiple violations of the constitution, among other things. I'm not sure where you are from, but this is definitely headline news in the country and the whole region. The crisis has been and currently is widely reported on internationally.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What does the appointment of the house leader have to do with bribery allegations? The economy section is puff. "landslide victory" is puff. Why did Sirisena replace his PM? Has he made any statements to that effect? And so what, the position is largely ceremonial. Oh well, this is certainly going to get posted, and it's better than it was, but it's very rough. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that has gotten the article to sufficient quality to post.  I'm not sure I can support any of the blurbs; Ongoing may be a better fit. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per Banedon, Pharaoh of the Wizards, etc. It's important for Sri Lanka, for the future of democracy in the region generally, and for the long-standing and ongoing Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani power struggles in geopolitics (with India and (China+Pakistan) seemingly supporting opposite sides in the dispute). I leave article quality, blurb-wording, and 'blurb vs ongoing' to be judged by others. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support + alt blurb III - added alt blurb III which is shorter, to the point & makes no mention of the 19th Amendendment that has basically kept it from getting posted. 39.57.138.205 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that and the article doesn't explain WHY it happened, or what the impact is, just that it did happen and the opposition lost their minds over it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – One can't see the forest for the trees in this prolix 4,000-word article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb3, which is simple and avoids POV issues. A significant threshold in an ongoing political crisis. The article may not be perfect but it's decent enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb3 - This should have been posted to the main page two weeks ago when the prime minister was replaced but unfortunately the two nominations were bodged, the nominators didn't even bother to update Portal:Current events. Events have since become even more serious.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just making a note here that, as identified in ERRORS, the SC of Sri Lanka has issued orders blocking this action. I have updated the ITN template and bumped it up a bit due to this significant change. --M asem (t) 15:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos sentenced

 * Comment - I would suggest an alternative blurb that concentrates on her conviction, but not the sentencing. STSC (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Based on the historical factor and Imeldas status. Some work needs to be done I guess, but it could be fixed before nightfall.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality is comprehensively below what is required. Will she/can she/has she appealed?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's stated she will appeal (she's losing her current seat in the Ph. Congress, she's fighting to keep it). --M asem (t) 15:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is heavily orange-tagged, lots of referencing issues, not ready for prime time yet. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Should be a shoe-in for the frontpage...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No fewer than 13 orange tags! This is not a GA, it is Start class. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yah, I have no idea how it got to GA or descended off that. --M asem (t) 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the quality at GA and when it was put up for FAC wasn't bad at all . It's what happened in the last two years that have "ruined" the article. --M asem (t) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, Oppose on article quality. This has to be a contender for the worst "GA" article on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible wait until final confirmation of conviction, which probably won't happen anytime soon. This conviction doesn't change anything. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand the charges, at minimum she will spend X years of jail time per each charge (I think it was 7) - there's no way around that. As she's 80, that basically means she's going to likely die in jail from natural causes. The actual conviction here means little. --M asem (t) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She won't be actually sent to jail until after the appeals process ends. As you said that she's old, she might never be sent to jail, nor her conviction be finalized. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't usually wait on appeals. Nearly ever conviction/sentencing is appealed, and only if that decision is flipped would we repost. --M asem (t) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can anyone else confirm this? I like to see previous case law on this one, considering that nothing changes on Marcos' standing despite conviction, as she's still a free woman, and can still run for elective positions. Unless Marcos doesn't appeal, her conviction means nothing. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember Joseph Estrada's case was posted upon sentencing, because he was president, and that he didn't appeal. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She was found guilty, that's the main point. STSC (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. More people want to see her in jail. Which I guess is the main point of finding someone guilty. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean the main point in the news, whether she will serve the prison term is another matter, but the conviction would automatically disqualify her from holding public office. STSC (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)STSC (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. A final confirmation of conviction is needed to perpetually disqualify someone from public office. If Marcos is appealing, it's not final. (Now if Marcos is pardoned, that's another matter.) Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She may apply for bail and still stand for elections pending appeal. STSC (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It doesn't disqualify her from public office. This changes nothing. She's still a free (wo)man, can still run for office, and won't go to jail. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a victory. This news is very newsworthy in ITN. STSC (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's a hollow victory, this is it. They can't even make her pay up what she stole at this point. ITN posts entries when there's a clear change of status (elections notwithstanding) on something/someone. This changes nothing. Wait until the appeals ends, then we'll talk. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN posts current events, we don't just wait till something traumatic has happened. STSC (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually ITN does as per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. That's why ITN posts terrorist attacks, but not when authorities foil such attacks (except for that one time when the targets are especially noteworthy). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So it's a hard fast policy as documented by one user's essay that you've used an WP:EASTEREGG to suggest is actually policy ( circumventing the consensus at WP:RfD) . Except for that time when it wasn't a few weeks ago. Got it. ghost 14:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say it's "hard fast policy". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The conviction of corruption itself (at long last) is significant news about a notable former First Lady of a poor country. Must post now. STSC (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Must not. The quality is insufficient.  Feel free to help fix it up if you feel that strongly about it being on the main page though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the ex-GA article's quality is quite acceptable as it stands. Every article is work-in-progress. Would you like to improve the article? STSC (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well sadly you're wrong, it's nowhere near acceptable. And no, I'm not interested in this article in the slightest, but thanks for the invitation.  You're supporting it, you improve it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't vote for you in ArbCom in the future then. STSC (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that's the worst news I've had all day, and I've been awake for literally an hour. Sorry you wouldn't want your Arbs to tell you cold hard facts, the truth, rather they'd obfuscate and conceal?  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we were right to reject you in last ArbCom election. STSC (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no doubt you felt the bunch you elected were ideal too. What has that got to do with anything here?  I'll tell you: absolutely nothing.  Stop wasting time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is simply not up to scratch. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support agree with STSC. Banedon (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You agree that we should post items directly in contravention of ITN guidelines? I see.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the quality of the article, not the newsworthiness of the event. Nihlus  11:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." The ex-GA article has far more than just this minimum quality required by WP:ITN. STSC (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As required by WP:ITN: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. This article has several such "serious" issues.   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was targeted by a massive tag-bombing recently from someone like you who can't be bothered to improve it. STSC (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the tags, remove them all. If not, then no problem.  You don't have to be "bothered to improve" something when pointing out there's something wrong with it.  That's not how it works.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would like to, but unfortunately, the article needs to be fix. BSrap (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A tagged article does not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I thought this one would be a shoe-in. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support This is big news especially in light of the presidency direction there.Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note all the orange tags in the article have been dealt with now. STSC (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just the sixty [page needed] and [citation needed] tags to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has met the minimum quality requirement without any serious issue. STSC (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the tags, all I see are "page needed" and "incomplete short citation". Both are issues but those are GA/FA-level completness stuff. WP:V has been just met. For purposes of expediting this, I would remove all those, but leave a link to the current version on the talk page to identify the problem citations so they can be fixed. It's definitely not a lack of sourcing at this point, just formatting of those, which we do not expect perfection at ITN. --M asem  (t) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We've never posted an article at ITN with so many inline tags, you know that. This is not about expectation of perfection, that's a red herring, this is about not promoting work which is frankly embarrassing to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Inline tags after an article has been nominated at ITN should be dealt with, but we're talking about an excessive number of inline tags that attempt to target quality issues we normally would not care about at ITN. Things are sourced, but book sources are lacking a more specific page reference, for example. That's a long-term issue, but not something ppl should be excessively tagging. I know the article was filled with CNs at the time I nominated, but those have been addressed. --M asem (t) 06:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not going to post an article with so many inline tags. Their existence is justified.  The sooner we all accept that, the better. Besides all that, there's no consensus at all to post this story in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I extremely doubt that if someone filled in a whole bunch of CNs with a single reference to a book but did not include page or chapter numbers with that ref, that we would not consider that acceptable for ITN. We are critical of CN tags which were a problem with the article before, but "page number" tags are not a critical failure for ITN. As I've said, at the present time, while at some point those page number issues should be fixed to be more precise, WP:V is otherwise met, and at this point for purposes of posting in a timely manner (which this is soon to run out), clearing out the page numbering warnings is completely acceptable. If they were CNs, absolutely agree that those cannot be removed and not addressed, but we simply do not have that stickler on the quality of the cite format for ITN. (And I'd argue that consensus is there to post once the main tags were dealt with, which they have been, leaving only the "page number" ones). --M asem (t) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not going to happen, and you know it. We have never posted anything like this, and we shouldn't start now.  And there's no consensus to post, at all.  She hasn't even been arrested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "We"? You don't speak for us. The objections here were mainly based on seeing the orange tags but those tags have been cleared. The other minor maintenance tags had been indiscriminately applied and they can be dealt with anytime. STSC (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am speaking as a member of the community who are aware of our norms (i.e. we never post such tagged material) and as a member of the community who can also read consensus (i.e. there's no consensus to post this). It's also a non-event as she hasn't even been arrested.  And you are absolutely incorrect if you believe tags to be have added "indiscriminately".  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The rambling man's policy of "we never post such tagged material" does not apply. Only the ITN guidelines apply here. STSC (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I said we have never posted such tagged material, so we should not start doing so, particularly in such a marginal case and particularly when there's no consensus to do so and particularly when the story is a damp squib. When she gets finally arrested and perhaps sent to prison, then you might have a story, so plenty of time to get the article up to scratch in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "ITN serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." You don't just wait and see what may happen next. STSC (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very often we do wait, especially in criminal cases. Sorry about that.  This is a particular non-story because she hasn't even been arrested!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Camp Fire

 * Comment I've not evaluated the story yet, but if it is posted it needs a much better blurb than that - it needs to say "camp fire" is a specific wildfire and not the usual meaning of "camp fire". It also needs some indication of significance - population? Evacuations? Deaths/injuries? Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Population 26,551. Also amazingly this is a place that averages 8 centimeters and 5 days of rain in October and twice or more that in November (think Mediterranean climate, like Italy), and even in the East when it can get 40C and no rain for 5-15 days and pine trees are full of turpentine this kind of thing usually doesn't happen. It takes 3 months of drought for maximum flammability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this point on article quality, it's barely above a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. Not really seeing how it could be much more than this, other than through immense fluffing.  This probably needs to go into the Paradise article really.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? A fire starts sunrise, town of 27,000 ordered to evacuate hours later and some are still trapped (nearly every household has cars and officials err on the safe side especially since they must've been in an extreme national weather service red flag fire warning or something and all parts of the state are no stranger to deaths from extreme spread speed), burns everything burnable, grows to 81 square kilometers by evening and it'll be a stub forever without immense fluff? Their typical Nov 9 weather is similar to London except almost triple the rain, this is climatologically unusual. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but nothing which couldn't be summed up in a few sentences in the Paradise article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 *  Wait  – Agree it's a stub at this point, but this looks like it could be fairly major. AP quotes fire official saying "a couple of thousand" structures destroyed, entire town "of 27,000" ordered to evacuate. San Jose paper says "the fire claimed multiple lives." SF Chronicle says "more than 30,000 people fled for their lives." Developing. Sca (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait Developing too quickly to speedy decline. — Moe   Epsilon  14:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I know the news on this is the rapid destruction of Paradise due to unpredictable winds, but there's two other fires in CA going, wit the Woolsey fire also having being seen as a similar threat. While wildfires in CA are not uncommon, these two (Camp and Woosley) are extremely close to major towns and thus more threatening than those more well in the wilderness. I agree with waiting just a bit but it might be appropriate to consider a merged blurb here. --M asem (t) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the article is short, but that's true for nearly all our disaster porn. Not every day a town of this size is burned to the ground. Expect more details to emerge as residents are allowed to re-enter the area. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Global warming makes places near deserts like Cali drier by extending the dry season and growing the desert. The climate zones move poleward. The nearest weather station to fire had only 5 millimeters precipitation since April 7th — 3 mm in May and 2 on Oct 2. On ignition day it went from 4°C no wind to 22°C 40kph in 6 hours and dew point actually dropped from -12°C to -18 giving a humidity of 6% which is a third of the driest place on Earth's average. And this was about 20km upwind of and downhill from the town. No wonder it spread fast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. 5 dead now, incidentally. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it safe for body counters to search the town yet? Do they use "death specialists" like coroner for this or people who might be busy now like police? Hopefully there's enough oxygen to let it burn past you breathing a bag of air underwater or in a concrete building or something but I don't know how common that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update – As of 22:000, six RSs say five dead (NYT: "at least" five) in Paradise-Chico (pop. 90,000) area, with 150,000+ evacuated, including SoCal residents in the path of the Woolsey Fire near Malibu, NW of L.A. (Sources updated above.) – Sca (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I was wondering about a combined blurb or even ongoing for the various wildfires but there hasn't been a significant update to the prose at 2018 California wildfires since the summer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding an altblurb that talks about all three concurrent fires. While the Camp Fire has the largest attention, the other two are just as dangerous due to the problematic winds. --M asem (t) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the other two burned over the last major barrier (US road 101) and are threatening to burn the homes of ~100,000 people including Malibu. Wow. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The Camp Fire is now the most destructive wildfire in California history. The city of Chico, California, pop. 90,000, is on the edge. By comparison, the Fort MacMurray wildfire of two years ago, which we posted, caused an evacuation of 80,000 people with no direct deaths. 173.32.99.138 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support buying it now, just surprised Trump has said it would have been better contained if the population of Paradise had been more fully armed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard he was blaming the media for the fires. Sca (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the migrant caravan, that's why democrats want open borders. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The article could use some improvements. w umbolo   ^^^  13:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (Alt) – As of 14:00, "at least" nine dead, more expected in Paradise area; 200,000 told to evacuate in SoCal. (Sources updated above.) – Sca (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Camp Fire only, as the general California wildfire article is not in good enough shape. Teemu08 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with the general wildfires page? Everything is sourced, it even surprisingly goes into the reasons for the fires this year. Further, to not post the other major fires going on is putting too much emphasis on the Camp Fire. All three (now four?) fires are wrecking havoc and multiple blazes make fighting just one more difficult. --M asem (t) 15:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this situation is clearly notable enough for the main page. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (with note that I'm in the affected area) – added a picture along the PCH looking toward Malibu from the Woolsey Fire. So many homes lost here and in Northern California; the Camp Fire is the most destructive in Cali history, definitely ITN-worthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Cyclonebiskit. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * First, let me blow the Camp Fire ash out of my nose, then I will support p  b  p  03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As a note to the posting admin, I've put the picture into the bot queue to get the right protections. Hasn't taken yet. --M asem (t) 06:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting ALT 2. Holding off on the photo for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Image swapped. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: François N. Macerola

 * Comment The National Film Board of Canada references are broken. The NFB appears to have redesigned its site sometime in the past several years. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support looks satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ok. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Thousand Oaks Shooting

 * Comment at what point do those shootings become so regular that they no longer belong on ITN? It's been less than two weeks since the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At the point that they stop becoming news.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Juventus vs Man Utd last night is news but it's not on the home page here, so it's got to be more than that. This is at least the 17th mass shooting in the US this year if our cat is accurate – 2018 mass shootings in the United States – albeit it's one of the bigger ones. Ericoides (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is because of the size that I exercised discretion and chose to nominate this to ITN, since you are correct in that there are simply too many mass shootings in the U.S. to nominate (only 17 by your count?).--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose If, jeebus forbid, shootings with 10+ deaths started happening every week, we would stop posting them all. A threshold of frequency does exist, it's just a question of where it lies. We had Stoneman in Feb (17), Sante Fe in May (10) and Pittsburgh in Oct(11). Absent some additional circumstance, I think we've reached BAU now. ghost 13:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now due to the article being a stub. When the article is expanded to a reasonable size, will re-evaluate its quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support While the article is a stub, this is notable. Mass shooting in the United States with more than 10 deaths is automatically notable IMHO. Also, 13 people have now been confirmed dead by CBS News. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no real point opposing due to stub status, as it will very soon be anything but. You know wat these articles are like. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And when it is not a stub, I will reassess the quality. We shouldn't post an article on the main page that is of insufficient quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. It shouldn't be too long before it is expanded to sufficient length as more details come in.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't understand what makes this different to any of the other mass shootings that happen in the US? The Pennsylvania shooting was different as a clearly religiously motivated attack on a synagogue - even in the US that is not routine. However a man randomly shooting dead students with no immediately obvious motivation is, incredibly sadly, rather run-of-the-mill for the USA in the 2010s. The body count isn't all that exceptional either - it's only the 6th most deadly in the last 3 years. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 'Country with virtually no gun control and poor health services surprised when people get shot'. Although frankly if it does get posted, just take a line out of The Onion's book and recycle the headline from any number of the previous shootings. Its not been news for years. If ITN is going to be a news-ticker of sensationalism, it should be covering the Whitehouse's attacks on the free press and blatant distribution of doctored video footage while lying about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because at this point, it is just old news. A mass shooting breaks out, a couple bystanders die. There isn't really anything that sets this different from other shootings that had happened in this year alone... and honestly, if a mass shooting isn't distinguished from other similar incidents (i.e the aforementioned Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue shooting), it doesn't really deserve a spot here unless there is more than meets the eye here, and we already have more than enough ITN coverages on shootings in the U.S alone. GreatZerosReef (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf. Sadly such shootings are basically routine in the US and will likely be largely forgotten within a day or two. I might revisit this if new information reveals something different about this shooting compared to all the others. Regards So  Why  14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, unlike other such shootings, coverage outside the US is slim at best. For example, Der Spiegel has three stories about the US on their homepage at the moment: The first two muslimas in the House, Jim Acosta and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hospitalization. Top story btw? Courts ordering bans on driving of diesel cars in certain cities. Regards So  Why  14:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's way down the list in "Headlines" ("Schlagzeilen"). – Sca (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Business as usual in the United States. Article is just above stub standard. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until perp is ID'd, at least. Meanwhile we can ponder Gerrit 's question at the top of this discussion. To be frank, I'm getting inured to news of U.S. mass shootings that seem random rather than terrorist acts (even though I'm American) . This looks like another nutcase. Sca (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose barring anything odd in the identification of the shooter. In contrast to the synagogue shooting, which was a religious/ethnic-driven shooting that borders on terrorism, this appears to be far less ideologically driven and more random act of violence. --M asem (t) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose another day another mass shooting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post about mass murders in other places of the world where they are a common occurence (like the recent rebelion in a Tajik prison where 40 people died and which doesn't even have a standalone article on wikipedia), so why should the US be any different? I mean, it's not like these things don't happen there every month or so --Openlydialectic (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems clear. Move to withdraw nom.--WaltCip (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francis Lai

 * Oppose: referencing is very poor - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The referencing is still well below the required standard - only half the prose is referenced, the filmography is sourced to IMDB and the awards are unsourced. The "Personal life" section also needs expanding or merging into the "life and career" section (and sourcing). Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support much better than when I took a look, expand a lead a little and reference the Césars, and I think we're in business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the remaining three César nominations have totally stumped me. The fr.wiki article has no sources either. Any help much appreciated. Of they could be just commented out for now, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what the problem is here that's preventing posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lack of consensus to post, lack of interested admins on a Sunday night, who knows? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lack of consensus because the opposes are now out of date? Could notable people please try and die on a Monday in future. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably. I think we already knew something about that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chance or Coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just another day at ITN/RD, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 US Midterm Elections

 * Question are you sure US midterm elections are ITNR? Searching ITNR for "midterm" finds no results, and the elections subsection only says changes in head of state are ITNR. Banedon (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a general election - the whole of the House are fighting for their seats + 1/3rd of the Senate. Not to mention several Governorships and state-level congressional bodies. --M asem (t) 23:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ITNR states "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states". Last time I checked, the United States is listed there. The question is, is this a general election? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think it obvious, but to source outside WP, NYTimes and Library of Congress. "General election" is to distinguish this from primary or runoff elections, and again, with the whole of the House and 1/3rd of the Senate being voted on, that certainly meets the idea of a majority of the national ruling body being at stake. --M asem (t) 00:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. I remember half the discussion in 2014 was discussing if this was ITNR, and if it isn't ITNR, if it's important enough. Obvious enough, let's wait. The UK doesn't even elect heads of state if we're basing on Banedon's reading of what's in ITNR yet we have posted each and every "general election" from that country. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even in US law, this is called a "general election" (, at 52 U.S.C. 30101(1)). --M asem (t) 00:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested if any of those who opposed in 2014 will take that definition of this being a general election. I'd also be waiting on someone to remark Kardashian-levels of tabloid coverage serious mainstream media devoted to this event. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * link to previous 2014 ITNC page (need to scroll to Nov 4 there). --M asem (t) 00:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the mid-terms are ITNR. From WP:ITNR "The results of general elections" and from general elections "A general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are chosen.". So yes, this is ITN/R, you'll just have to deal with that, and whatever pointless bickering happened in 2014 belongs there. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironically I asked a simple question, yet some people have already leaped to "pointless bickering" comments. Banedon (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Nationwide election gaining coverage. Will elect a new Speaker (key national figure). Highly notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support when updated This is a general election. The entire 435 seat House of Representatives is up, plus 1/3 of the 100 member Senate, plus 36 of the 50 governors and the constitutional offices (Lt. Gov, Attorney General, etc.) in those states. It has also been a dominant news item for some time. Depending on how the results turn out, we may know in a matter of hours, or a matter of days, who has the majority in what chamber. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Are the polls closed over there already? It is only 16:34 on the west coast.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Poll hours vary by state. Some are already closed, most have some more time to run. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We likely won't know the results until tomorrow morning, and in any case, it's best to wait for the rest of the world to wake up so that they can weigh in on this (it's currently just after midnight UTC).--WaltCip (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close The results of the election will not be known today. In order to be consistent with the treatment of elections in other countries where their ITN nominations were raised prematurely on election day, this nomination should be closed now and reopened once results are known. Chrisclear (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, judging by AP, they've already called a bit more than 1/3rd of the House seats. There may be a few tight races, but US elections at this level will have their results declared within hours of West Coast polls closing (the few seats from Alaska and Hawaii not withstanding). --M asem (t) 03:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply I appreciate the points you've raised, but I still think the nomination is premature, and it should have waited until 7 November. There seems to be a significant inconsistency with how this election is treated, and the speed with which ITN nominations of elections in other countries (eg. Pakistan in July) are closed. Chrisclear (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more a fact that while there's part of teh US election system that remain convoluted, the well-connected nature of the country means tally results are quickly gathered and disseminated. In a country like Pakistan that lacks the infrastructure for that, that's just not the same thing. Mind you, if there are enough tight races that the press cannot report either way (Bush v Gore, anyone?) we should wait too. --M asem (t) 03:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes I agree with your comment about the "well-connected nature of the country means tally results are quickly gathered and disseminated", especially when compared to other countries such as Pakistan. However I also agree that there could be "enough tight races that the press cannot report either way (Bush v Gore, anyone?)", and this is the main reason why I think the nomination could/should have waited. Chrisclear (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb Losers don't like feeling controlled. And neither do the people who believed in them to save the country. Especially as antsy as the media's made people this time around, best to frame this "civil war" a bit more positively. Besides, we all know who really controls both houses, whether or not we agree who that is. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a neutral altblurb, at least in calling them "loses majority", that feels very "sore winner"-ish. Nearly all other general election results simply note which party/platform gained control, not who lost control. --M asem (t) 03:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my fingers weren't following my brain there. Fixed. "Retain" or "keep" doesn't matter to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Updated with ABC projected results. Will need to wait for confirmation from more sources before posting. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * weak-ish support very dubious as ITNR but still this is gonna shape the economy and it IS in the news. Suggest a link to the main election page as governors is important too.Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support after having spent all day sitting behind a table in an ambulance garage watching this happen. We had the 2010 and 2014 midterms in ITN; in fact just exchange the parties' names and you have the 2010 blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the articles haven't been updated yet, and probably won't be fully updated for another 8-12 hours; most of the results should be available in 2-3 hours but US editors will be asleep then. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 07:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added another blurb to mention that the Republicans have expanded their majority in the Senate as reported in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. Should the parties be linked as well? Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment right now all blurbs use Easter egg links, they don't link to the Senate or the House of Reps, they lead to election result articles. This should be fixed.  Also, several tense issues in the linked articles which need to be fixed before this is posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Different alt2 now to avoid the Easter egg issue. Choose "expand/retain" as you see fit (who cares?) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but wait for the official results not just media calls. As discussed on WT:ITNR, I think this qualifies as a 'general election' because all House seats were contested. I've adjusted the alt2 blurb to make it clear that those are names of parties. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for official confirmation that the Christofascist legislative agenda has been stopped dead. This is ITN/R so once the results are in, all that's needed is a quality prose update. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Enough House and Senate seats have been reported officially won to basically confirm the aforementioned results. Actual "official" results may take weeks, by which time this story will have become stale.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats all I was waiting for, now would be a fine time to post. What's wrong with bolding United_States_elections,_2018 all the articles in the blurbs above are awful. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Wikipedia is not a news ticker, and this is just a routine legislative election, not a change of government. If there's something out of the ordinary about it please tell us what that is and include it in the hook. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't some municipal by-election affecting a single province in the U.S. This is a per se general election which is ITN/R. The only thing that wasn't at stake was the head of state.--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a change in power of the lower chamber. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The general election article says In presidential systems, a general election is a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and [...] are elected at the same time. So by that definition it's not a general election. We wouldn't post an election of this nature from other countries either. Now there may be a case for saying this is exceptional for various reasons, which we can debate here, but it doesn't qualify automatically under ITNR. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This same article states later, specific to the United States, "General elections occur every two to six years (depending on the positions being filled with most positions good for four years) and include the presidential election". This is an example of such an election. The U.S. President is determined every four years. The mid-term election represents a changing of the guard of the legislative body, which is the lawmaking arm of the federal government. The Democrats assuming a majority in the U.S. House represents a fundamental change in direction of the country's legislation, as until then, both the House and the Senate were of a Republican majority, and the U.S. President is a Republican. That a President was not elected does not exclude this from being a general election.--WaltCip (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair enough then. I see we did also post a similar election in France last year too. Oppose struck. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't post legislative election results from random countries on the ITN, American lobby needs to go. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering the conversation that was just had regarding the significance of this election and that we've posted elections like this in the past, your comment strikes me as being tremendously ignorant. Struck out my comment as bad faith in retrospect, thought I do contend that this is not some "random legislative election" and that this marks a significant shift in the direction of the U.S. federal government. The President is not the King.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A search of the archives indicates that legislative and parliamentary elections have indeed been previously posted, in "random countries" like Greece, Iceland, Iran, the Gambia, Lesotho, etc.  Spencer T• C 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what WP:ITN/R is? General elections are on there, and this was a general election. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Outside of a few races which are close, both articles are updated with last night's results. The few contested races are not going to change the broad swings in either House or Senate. --M asem (t) 14:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb 2. This is ITNR and is updated.  I thought about posting a picture, but it seems unfair to post a picture of either Pelosi(the likely Speaker) or McConnell(the Senate leader). 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But is it updated? The lead (and infobox) for the House election doesn't currently (see here) mention who has won (and I for one have neither the time nor the inclination to try to update this myself, as I suspect it's not there because some editors insist the results are not yet official or whatever). So do we need to think about either temporarily pulling or amending our blurb? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The results within each state, where known, have been updated, but yes, the House lacked an overall update: I've added that (noting it is projections, sourced to NYTimes). Senate one had a similar line. So both are updated as best as we can at this point, barring the fact that official results won't be posted for a few weeks. --M asem (t) 17:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Masem. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Could we please change "keeps or expands" to "keeps and expands"? If you expand the majority, you also keep it, so they are NOT mutually exclusive.  Thanks.  p  b  p  08:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So just "expands" then. And this isn't the place to post issues with material on the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) INS Arihant

 * Weak Oppose only a one-sentence update to the article so far; the blurb doesn't communicate why this is important (and I'm not convinced yet this is an important milestone in the Indian nuclear program). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "6th to do X thing" isn't usually significant.  This also would have been more notable upon its launch than the completion of its first task that it was built to do in the first place. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, needs copyedit, refs, and expansion of the development phases section. Support on notability, a nuclear powered submarine firing nuclear armed SLBMs is not a trivial thing (even with Russian help), and I think it's a significant milestone in Indian military buildup even if the story isn't getting widespread coverage. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that when it fires an SLBM at someone, it would be notable. If this does not have widespread coverage, it is not "in the news". 331dot (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, the capability is a significant technical challenge, I'm not sure how you can be so dismissive of it. Last time I equated lack of widespread coverage to not being 'in the news' I was pretty thoroughly denigrated so careful sticking to that line of reasoning. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article states that this submarine was based on a Russian submarine; they did not develop this themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Project 971 submarine is a fast attack boat, not an SSBN. Based on, maybe, but no carbon copy. The reactor was indigenous, and perhaps most importantly is the miniaturization of the nuclear warheads necessary to make them viable for SLBMs. I mean, this isn't the sixth time someone built the worlds tallest water slide, and while maybe the sea trials were a better time to nominate, absent a time machine, it's nominated now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we set aside the "posting the 6th of something" problem, the timing is a big issue as "the significance of the developments described" is nil, which is WHY it's not in the news. This nom fails to check almost all the ITN boxes. ghost 16:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose not particularly notable and not in the news. And the blurb gives no indication as to why anyone should care about this at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although a reasonably big event, ITN not really needed for this. Article needs expansion to convey importance of the news. Blurb needs rephrasing to even be considered. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article gives no indication of whether this submarine is nuclear-armed, just that it is nuclear-powered (two very different things). Even if it does carry nuclear missiles, the sixth nuclear triad is not a major story, and the first cruise is a strange time to nominate it. India has had nuclear weapons for a long time. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I think (in the interest of secrecy) navies don't generally say "such-and-such boat has nuclear missiles." The article does state that this boat carries nuclear-capable missiles. ghost 13:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donna Axum

 * Support - Short indeed. But ok. Sources are ok. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose . There is almost nothing about her principle claim to notability (being crowned Miss America) and nothing at all in the body of the article which (apart from a single short sentence) focuses exclusively on her life after that event, and barely goes into detail about anything other than her husbands. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Still not the best article, but good enough now for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakest support it's not quite a stub, what's there is alright, but it's mostly lightweight coverage, per Thryduulf. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * & : added more sourced info in article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) New Caledonian independence referendum, 2018

 * Oppose It just keeps the status quo. Now, if the result went the other way and they gained their independence from France, then I'd support.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a respectable position, though I can imagine a European referendum on leaving the EU would, even if the vote was to remain, be viewed as significant. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected - nice work all round.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - this referendum was the product of a decades-long struggle between the Kanaks and France. The mere fact that a referendum was held is highly significant, regardless of the results. BTW, I don't think "New Caledonia" needs to be bolded. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant referendum. Historical for the nation. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: needs more commentary on the result and reactions. At the moment there is only one sentence - Dumelow (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but as Dumelow says, more details should be added. I am 100% sure we would have posted if the original Brexit vote was against exiting as the coverage leading to it was significant enough - same here. The media were certainly not treating this like the random kooky "should our state secede from the US?" that randomly makes it to some elections but is never given serious coverage. --M asem  (t) 20:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment in reply to Dumelow and Masem - I started the reactions section, but I can merge it back into the other sections for the time being. We can redevelop it after international governments comment on the event. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support maintaining the status quo is just as notable as not maintaining the status quo. Not as exciting perhaps, but notability shouldn't be in question. Banedon (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support topic is in the news, article is in good shape. Ticks my boxes. A little light on details, but good enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support notable enough to be on the main page from my point of view. I was going to nominate it when I realised there already is a discussion here. Turismond (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy Heywood

 * Weak support the "Titles and styles" section is unreferenced, but the rest is tip-top. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Chow

 * Support. Long enough and reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - influential film tycoon. Article is adequate and referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Long enough. Sourced ok. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are two unsupported claims in the article "He also studied martial arts under master Lam Sai-wing" and "At the time Cathay was a predominant force in the Malaysian film industry". I think they should be addressed before posting - Dumelow (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I added three references in order to resolve this issues. Please check it out. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: looks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support- A very notable man indeed. STSC (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Japan Series

 * Comment a number of the refs are in Japanese, which I can't check. I get my back up a little when I see a whole paragraph with a single ref. For example "In Game 2, the Hawks started Rick van den Hurk." is not supported by the ref. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the source (which does cover everything in that paragraph) does verify that van den Hurk started Game 2. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because I'm not baseball-literate, but how do I infer that the Hawks started Hurk in Game 2? If I'm not capable of evaluating the refs in the article, that's ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The text I quoted all talks about the results of the two starting pitchers: Kris Johnson and Rick van den Hurk. The very last part confirms that it's talking about van den Hurk's stats in the three games he has started in the Japan Series in his career. I get it's not the most direct language, and as a baseballphile I can take that for granted. I don't know who added the Japanese-language sources, but I assume they're accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per collapsed discussion. The article looks fine, each game has a prose update. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Glad that helped. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready. All looks good to me, though I would appreciate it if the lead got expanded at some point while the article is out there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I'll try to give that a go tonight -- T orsodo g Talk 16:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just expanded the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Feel free to add the image. --Tone 20:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted RD) Assassination of Sami-ul-Haq

 * Comment presently, the sources I see are linking this to the Asia Bibi story we have up there, but I'd wait to see what Western sources say about it. It might be worthwhile to modify the Asia Bibi blurb to something like "In the wake of Asia Bibi's acquitial,..." to introduce this, if there is a perceived connection there. --M asem  (t) 15:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, western sources are picking this up, but none of them directly connect the acquital to the reason for death (only that it can around the same time.) Agree that this does not then rise to a level of a blurb. --M asem (t) 15:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment what Masem said. If Asia Bibi hadn't already been posted I'd now support a combined blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, weak oppose RD article needs a bit of work, but this is not a blurb, just as the acquittal story was not a blurb. We must certainly not make combined blurbs based on any kind of perceived connection.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD Assassination of who is popularly known as Godfather of Taliban in the wake of Asia Bibi's acquitial is something very significant. --Saqib (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: article needs a bit of work. First sentence of "career" needs rewriting into natural English.  Second paragraph needs a reference at the end.  Article sections and content are jumbled (why is "Early life" after career?, "Early life" includes things that happened in 2013).  Would support RD if these are dealt with, not convinced yet about significance for a blurb - Dumelow (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose combo blurb for now. He was an ally of the ruling party, but at the same time he opposed the acquittal and had plans to join the protests. So that is most likely related to the Bibi case one way or another. But we also shouldn't post them together unless we've established a clear connection. Sources are merely saying that the incident "comes at a sensitive time", which does not necessarily link the two. For all we know, this could be nothing more than a coincidence, or probably just an opportunistic hit while security forces are preoccupied. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also oppose RD. Too many uncited claims for this to be posted right now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Question What is the connection to Bibi? Also, if a person is so important as to make their death at 80 blurbable, the article needs to be longer than this. ghost 17:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Huge deal, yet another consequence of the acquittal Asia Bibi that some editors on this very page that some editors (looking at you, ) would be of no consequence at all. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Look at me by all means. Neither of these "huge deals" are even on the main page of the BBC News homepage.  And deliberately supporting a low quality article is somewhat flawed (looking at you ).  Now quit the pathetic personalising and get on with making Wikipedia better for our readers, not a soapbox from which to attempt to right great wrongs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * >Neither of these "huge deals" are even on the main page of the BBC News homepage. Neither of them are on the main page of North Korea's main news organization either, but most normal people don't look up to random state media outlets for verification of importance of a particular news piece Openlydialectic (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Get a grip and think twice before responding in such a fashion. On second thoughts, don't.  It is a great example.  Bravo!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Fix the cn tags and then I will support RD. The article is good enough once those have references. Strong oppose blurb as they fall well short of the 'major transformative world leader' required by WP:ITN/DC. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD when citation needed tags are fixed per Modest Genius. I am not familiar enough with the subject to comment on whether or not I would support a blurb at this time. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – RD only – Another blip in the continuing saga. Sca (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality. My issue is that he's called "The father of the Taliban" by two right-wing think tanks, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Jamestown Foundation with their own self-published sources. I don't buy it. I might support a blurb with a better article that actually explained his significance. Right now, assuming it's cleaned up, RD is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support combined blurb with the Asia Bibi case (see Washington Post), once article quality is improved. -Zanhe (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WikiProject Pakistan has rated the subject "Low importance". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for context, that rating itself is of low importance. Everyone can just change it to whatever they like. That parameter has outlived its usefulness and is overdue to be removed from Wikiproject banners. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Exactly. This "importance" rating parameter in the talk page template is basically random and essentially meaningless. It should not be taken into account when making decisions here at ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb doesn't rise to the level of significance needed for it. RD is sufficient, but even then when the issues surrounding the article are resolved. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb if the article is expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD; oppose blurb per LaserLegs. Article needs improvement: current issues with referencing as well as the section on a scandal is nearly as long as that of his career (career needs more expansion).  Spencer T• C 20:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Its even in the news in France, Germany, Italy, Ireland and Canada. "For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder....a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance." - WP:ITNRD 58.27.134.33 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has been referenced now. 58.27.134.33 (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD As noted by the proceeding IP, we don't blurb every unnatural death of a person that meets GNG - the standard is "prominent" figures. This is subjective, but at the very least I should have heard of him. Also, no one here or in RS has provided even the most tenuous of connections to Bibi. ghost 16:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - blurb or not, this is at a minimum ready for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus for a RD at the moment, posting. --Tone 20:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm really not comfortable with something as bold as "father of the Taliban" in a BLP article cited to two right wing think tanks. I guess it's fine? #twocents. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Father of..." is the sort of hagiographic language that doesn't really mean anything specific. I think it's okay to repeat it as long as it's attributed, so long as it's not patently inaccurate. ghost 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mario Segale

 * Support Article is alright and the nomination is not yet stale. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support seems alright for RD. Teemu08 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and only if we're going to be nitpicky on the date, this local area paper broke the news on the 31st, but agree either way that either the 31st or 1st is the date it got media attention. --M asem (t) 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)