Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2020

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

(Posted) RD: Hella Brock

 * Support. A decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I added a few ISBN's looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irina Antonova

 * Comment Appears stubby, can do well with an ib and some expansion (see the ruwiki article). Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added more text from Russian --Andrei (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine now. Please also add an infobox to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added --Andrei (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose missing some citations and no mention in the article of her death. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added more references --Andrei (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is now much better. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment can you add a sentence about her death if you have sources? should be good for RD when that is added.  When that is done count this as Support  JW 1961   Talk  21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one already. Can you clarify what else is needed? --Andrei (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ben Bova

 * Support - looks in good enough shape to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not thrilled that for such a short bio, the biblography was previously shuffled off to a separate article. Yes, 100+ works is long, but I feel it would be better for that to be included in the bio page, and which would only need to add the necessary ISBNs for published works to complete referencing there. I won't oppose posting if that's not done here, but I just feel it's better overall if there's no reasonable way to expand the present article. --M asem (t) 01:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the exact opposite. Articles that are mostly bibliography, compared to the amount of text, are a eyesore, and this seems like a neat way to have resolved that issue, with a summary remaining at the parent. Few will be interested in that great long list of works, but for the few that are, they now have a page to visit. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, a giant in his field. On the afternoon when the first images from the Viking 1 Mars lander were printed in the newspapers in 1976 I showed him a front page (he hadn't seen the TV relay). Bova immediately said "Looks like New Jersey". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine for an RD even without the bibliography. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Attention Needed) AlphaFold

 * Support. Comment . I wrote up a little bit about AlphaFold which you can use as the target article. It is currently a start-class article, but, will definitely require someone more knowledgeable to help expand before it can get to homepage levels. I can lend a hand later tonight. Edits and expansion to the article is completed. Article has shaped up well to a C-class article. I feel pretty good about it. Now, if folks can hash out news-readiness and the blurb, I think this is good to go :) Ktin (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we get a source from a reputable science journal that's NOT some pop science press release bullshit? If it's as groundbreaking as the scientists say it is, then they can get a peer reviewer to state that.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nature and Science are pretty much the top of the tree, as science news reporting goes. Venki Ramakrishnan is President of the Royal Society, a structural molecular biologist himself with a Nobel prize to prove it, and unaffiliated to both DeepMind and the competition.  What speaks for AlphaFold are its results -- see eg the schematic from the article in Science for a sense of the degree to which AlphaFold has scored way better than has ever been achieved before, and done it across the full range of hundred or so structures that entrants were asked to try to solve.  Also impressive is Lupas's testimony of how he gave AlphaFold one more sequence, which his team had been trying to understand for 10 years.  Half an hour later came back a structure, which explained all the data they had been struggling with.  The CASP conference continues until Thursday, so expect more comment and information and assesment to come. Automated structure prediction really has been seen as the 'holy grail' of structural biology for 50 years.  CASP is a reputable competition and collaborative conference, the benchmark in the field, which has witnessed steady but slow improvements for 20 years. But this year AlphaFold has "annihilated" the challenges.  That is why this news is getting such a reaction. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability seems there, but the blurb needs some tweaking to be more understandable.  Nixinova   T   C   22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's ελληνική to me. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. and, please see if Altblurb and Altblurb2 are helpful :) Ktin (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the link in the alt-blurbs from protein folding problem to protein folding, as the latter gives a better general way in. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Clearly notable for an encyclopedia. I'd prefer the first blurb. --bender235 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on article quality + significance but I yearn for a slightly more usable blurb (even with alt2). Its unfortunate these problems aren't as famous as the various math challenges where we could just name and point to them. But that's my only issue otherwise, article's been improved when I first peaked at it. --M asem  (t) 01:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a variant of alt 2.  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The original one that is. The target article could use some multimedia and expansion but is okayish. Gotitbro (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Big scientific news. I think Alt-2 is the best option. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I won't oppose this, but we should be clear that this is a rather incremental improvement. It is marginally more accurate (against a curated database of empirical data) than previous computational approaches, while still not being able to solve all of the problems in the curated database, and certainly not all problems that arise outside of curation. The lede in the article gets this point across, but the blurb should do so as well, in a way that doesn't just handwave terms like "significant barrier".130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This builds on what has gone before, but it is more than just an "incremental improvement". Understand the scoring system here. 2018's score of 45 means that 45% of atoms were in more-or-less the right place.  Which meant that 55% weren't.  Which meant the 2018 predictions weren't accurate enough to be biologically useful.  In contrast a score of 85-90 means that all but 10 to 15% of atoms are placed just where they should be.  (And some of that remaining 10-15% may not have a stable position - in reality it may be a bit that flaps about).  AlphaFold 2 is predicting structures accurately and robustly enough (and with well-calibrated estimates of local confidence), that its predictions are reliable enough to meaningfully understand the biological structure of the protein. That has never been consistently achieved before -- and AlphaFold is managing this across the full range of sequences it was presented with (with, as I understand it, just a single exception in the whole of the CASP test set).  This is beyond a tipping point, it is revolutionary. In context: 90% position accuracy on this metric is as good as you can get from structures 'solved' with the best available experimental data. (For which people win prizes).  And AlphaFold 2 is consistent achieving this, or getting damn close, across the board.  Jheald (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * People win those prizes because they are doing something truely novel: they are solving previously unknown structures. This is solving a subset of those already-solved structures, again, in the hopes that it might one day solve an unknown structure. The field has moved onto complex interactions and macrocomplexes, and single molecule folding has become a purely academic interest. Which isn't bad or disqualifying, it will have impacts regarding time and scale of certain projects, but "revolutionary" it is not. I have added an altblurb to reflect the meat and bones of the current news.130.233.3.185 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The algorithm didn't know the structures had been solved, nor did it use any of the information from those solutions. The whole point of the CASP test set is that it is designed to be a typical cross-section of proteins that is representative of proteins for which we have sequence data but no 3d structure.  So solving a CASP protein is expected to be as difficult as solving a typical unknown sequence.  Currently there are 200 million known protein sequences, with 30 million new sequences being added every year, compared to about 170,000 proteins with known structures.  Typically it currently takes an entire PhD to solve one sequence,  if you can get the experiments to work and if you can get the protein to crystallise and if you can make sense of the results - none of which are guaranteed.  There was a protein (without a known structure) that Lupas's team gave as an 'extra' to AlphaFold, that they had been trying to understand for ten years.  AlphaFold came back with a prediction that they were able to confirm explained their experimental data, and which they were able to tweak in 30 minutes to give a final structure.  So AlphaFold has in fact already been used to solve completely unknown proteins.  Yes, of course one wants to know the proteins interact with other molecules, how they function as molecular machines.  But getting a structure is an essential prerequisite for this -- it is anything but a "purely academic interest".
 * Secondly to say that AlphaFold has "successfully doubled the accuracy of computationally-predicted protein folding" is to profoundly misinterpret the significance of what the AlphaFlow team has achieved. More relevant is that they have reduced the mismatch between the prediction and what experiment can reliably determine from almost half the protein to between nought and five percent. That is a step forward of truly huge significance.  Previously predictions were not reliable or precise enough to inform biological understanding of the protein.  Now, on the strength of the CASP competition results, they are.  That is a sea change, as well as an extraordinary intellectual achievement. Jheald (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per IP above. It sounds like the popular press has over-blown the significance of this. If Alt3 is correct, then it doesn't look like the sort of major breakthrough that would warrant ITN. Also, none of the Hooks give any indication of why this is important, to a nonspecialist. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , definitely respect your views. But, as a layperson, this is how I read it. Proteins -- linear structures of amino acids -- fold into 3D shapes and structures -- which eventually what causes them to express themselves and have the intended effects -- good / bad etc. So, for biologists to explore drug discovery / disease research etc -- they need the final structure that proteins take shape. But, the only way currently to do it accurately is via laboratory examinations. These lab examinations -- are time consuming and expensive. So, computational algorithms can do that. But, until now their accuracy levels were not up there. Now, accuracy levels have reached upwards of a score of 90 (lets say 90% just for this conversation, though there are some more nuances). Now suddenly, the algorithms become valuable as a way to determine these protein structures sans experimentation (x-ray crystallography etc.). So, the barrier between when algorithms become accurate enough to be truly valuable has been breached. Hence, this is important.
 * PS: The above explanation is quite simplistic. But, this is the gist of what I have learnt as a layperson. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not an expert in AI or protein folding, but I know enough to realise that this is a major advance if the claims are true, definitely worth an ITN blurb. The issue is whether now is the right moment. I'm a bit hesitant that the researchers haven't published their results in a peer-reviewed paper, which is usually our threshold for science stories, but I suppose they were part of the community annual testing process so have at least had some scrutiny by experts. However they haven't publicly described the methods used yet, or released the algorithm. It's undeniably in the news now though. I'm therefore torn and refraining from !voting. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. If we do post this, the blurb should link to Protein structure prediction, which is specifically about the computational problem, not protein folding which is about the natural process. Modest Genius talk 15:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Obscure and arcane. It may be significant, but will be understood only by a specialized niche audience. Most readers won't have a clue about what "protein folding" is, much less what this development may signify. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Front page of The Times newspaper this morning with photo, plus two inside pages and leader. Do they really have such a higher opinion of their readers than we do of ours? And aren't encyclopedias here to inform people? Jheald (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see it here at the moment. Anyway, the hoi polloi don't read The Times of London. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon my French, but this is an asinine argument. Protein folding is the premier problem in computational biology. People unaware of its significance or implications can read the respective articles. As I wrote above, this achievement is clearly relevant for an encyclopedia, just as gravitational wave detection or the black hole image was before (both of which we featured on ITN). The number of readers who at the time knew what a gravitational wave was was probably hardly bigger than the ones you suspect knowing of protein folding now. --bender235 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Most scientific discovery is incremental. To the extent that we ever see advancement quickly enough to qualify here, this nom is as good as it gets.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Amakuru. Also, the body of the article hasn't been updated properly beside a small 3-line paragraph about the, uhh, "breakthrough". Also, also, I've also counted 7 yays and 4 nays as of right now, with nays becoming more frequent as time goes by, so I'm removing the ready tag for now. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * we're not counting votes on Wikipedia. The embarrassingly uninformed statements of people unaware of the significance of this breakthrough can be safely ignored. This is easily the most important methodological discovery in biology since CRISPR gene editing a decade ago (and which won a Nobel just this year). --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again, CRISPR and others win prizes because what they are doing is novel. This is partially solving, to a better degree than previously, already-solved problems. It's an extended machine learning training. I have a nearly-full career of "we've finally solved the protein folding problem" behind me; I don't make uninformed statements here, so you can kindly unstrike my alt blurb relating to the mathematical scoring of this competition.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling this merely an "improvement on an already-solved problem" is like saying AlphaGo beating Lee Sedol was only slightly better than beating a random 6-yr old at Go. And your claim isn't even plausible. If achieving 92% accuracy was that easy, why hasn't it occurred in the past 26 years of CASP already? --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. This is a major breakthrough with huge implications to all bio-related sciences. This is akin in significance to CRISPR (which won the noble prize, and which was posted). Also, all the blurbs have links too, and links are meant to be read. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Equivalent to a press release. Absolute support once peer-review comes out. Albertaont (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . Please, notice that this is more than a press release. The results have been shown during the CASP meeting, solving previous unknown protein foldings with 90% accuracy. Even, an unknown folding, that a research group has been battling for ten years, has been solved as an "extrawork". All the results has been "peer reviewed", in a way by the jury, formed by top field experts. Also, this groundbreaking work is already In the news, as in Nature and Science, etc. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: how long does it take to sort this thing out? This is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agreeing with bender235 here. Everything else for November 30th has already been posted - how has one of the most important scientific advancements since the discovery of CRISPR not been posted yet? -- Glencoe2004 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe we could ping to some biology related administrators, as Could you please, take a look at this ITN proposal ? Thanks. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Protein folding is far from my specialty but that said, this is a huge breakthrough that has implications for every branch of the life sciences, especially medicine. The computational challenge of protein folding has hindered advancement in a myriad of fields for years and winning CASP is newsworthy in and of itself, imo. Keilana (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another comment: a week later and still no decision? What in the world is going on here? What an embarrassment. --bender235 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Papa Bouba Diop

 * Support I am not impressed with the sourcing in the article, but it looks okay. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support not sure I follow the comment above but hey, ymmv. Looks fine to me, RIP big man. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While could be expanded beyond the career (personal life/family etc.), looks okay. Gotitbro (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Vladimir Fortov

 * Oppose for now requires expansion, at the moment is just a list of positions held. Is there anything that can be added about his research?  Also missing some cites for the international awards - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too barebones/stubby for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not notable. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Read through the rules first, eh? Notability is not part of criteria for RD. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes RDs with a Wikipedia article are always notable.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Zero personal details outside of DOB/D and COVID. Not a BLP, could reasonably be moved to Work of Vladimir Fortov.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yes, it's true, notability is no longer a requirement for RD. That does not, however, apply to stubs.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Prowse

 * Support RD, oppose blurb He played an extremely recognizable role in an extremely successful work, but I don't think he's enough of a household name for a blurb. Edit: He's not a household name from my perspective in the United States. Users from the UK, please correct me if I'm wrong Kevillarreal 08:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD article is in good shape. Not even close to a blurb IMO, although like Kevillarreal I am American and lack international context - I'm unsure how "big" the Green Cross Code was in the UK. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  09:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, many citations needed including about half the "Acting" section, most of the "Star Wars" section and some personal health information which could have BLP issues. I've tagged these passages - Dumelow (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Front page of BBC, Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post and other news sites. Torqueing (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The cn tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, at least 12 CN tags, will revist JW 1961   Talk  19:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support 1 cn left (that sentence can be removed if no citation forthcoming), much improved referencing since yesterday JW 1961   Talk  18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD Clearly newsworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Front page on a lot of major news outlets. I am not too worried about the cn tags. The article has some a lot of good sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The cn tags are the only the reason this isn't ready for RD (RD only requires articles to not have major issues like main tags etc. not their notability). Gotitbro (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried to fix a few CN tags. Still needs a bit of work know. Govvy (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is a BLP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I always assume BLP stands for biography of living person! Unless you mean something else, so I am a bit confused by your oppose statement! :/ Govvy (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the recently deceased count under BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, far too many uncited sentences, however I'd suggest that a lot of the tags are actually regarding sentences that could be removed anyway - a lot of trivia there - so it may not take too much to get it up to scratch. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because all important things have citations. A citation I just provided, for example, confirmed that the convention Prowse attended in 2007 was to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Star Wars and not some other occasion. This is not a fact about David Prowse so using its tag as an argument against RD is pedantry. Connor Behan (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Newsworthy, reported by numerous major news outlets. A noteworthy actor and celebrity. – Crackersgreen (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can get seven cites for one sentence, but seven sentences can't get one cite? Mlb96 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's getting there, but there are still some outstanding tags to deal with. P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support now that tags have been dealt with.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only, mainly because most people have no idea who played Darth Vader, though most know who the cinematic D.V. was/is. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shams Badran

 * Support Article covers all bases. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I looked at this yesterday and meant to write a comment questioning the use of scare quotes, but that's no reason to prevent this from being posted. I naïvely assumed this would sail through.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Louis Servan-Schreiber

 * Comment Paris: Fayard under Works needs a ref, but otherwise good to go.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that one. Now added ISBN and OCLC - Dumelow (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Short decently referenced artcle, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Koshebe massacre

 * Comment Is this unusual? The Boko Haram insurgency has been going on for quite sometime and while this might be the largest attack this year there have been a lot more deadly attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. I wouldn't mind supporting this if shown otherwise. Also the article is not up to par currently for blurbing. Gotitbro (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We routinely post routine weather events that happen dozens of times in a year in a small portion of the earth with far fewer deaths. I would start with "wow, this is terrible" and go from there.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not my point. My point is there have been much more deadly attacks by Boko Haram and none of them saw the light of the day at ITN. There was also an attack in Afghanistan just yesterday but that won't be here either. These are long-running conflicts (81 people were killed back in June), I am only asking how is this unusual in that for a blurb. Though I am tilting towards a support if the article is expanded a bit. Gotitbro (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am asking cause if we post we will be breaking from "precedent" here on ITN and would be opening up to more such articles in ongoing conflicts but would be perhaps for the good. Gotitbro (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Point is this is the worst attack of the year.  It's not humdrum, run of the mill weather that we keep insisting on posting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Like Gotitbro said, its definitely a stub for now. I can change this if it was shown that the attack was novel in some way, i.e. new organization, new tactics, better weaponry. I will revisit my vote as I do expect updates to be made to article. Albertaont (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Comment 110 people murdered in one go? And we'd debate if that's newsworthy??  Yet happily post some wind that kills people every year, with startling regularity.  I think ITNC is now officially out of kilter.  Article could be improved a little.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be rude, but just an observation -- when we have mass shootings in the United States, you routinely vote against them, arguing that its not newsworthy, because it happens so often here. What is the line of newsworthy? -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  19:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not rude at all, and I welcome your question. I guess I would suggest that a single attack which kills more than 100 individuals in a country where this hasn't happened for a nomination that I can recall this year, I'd offer my support.  Mass shootings in the US reached a point where they happen literally every day and like the "Atlantic hurricane season", we have to get used to the idea that when the "norm" is defined by whacky gun-toting idiots shooting a few people every day in the US or some wind routinely kills a few dozen people as it does every single year, we need to look for more to find something that is  encylcopdeically significant.  Cheers,  feel free to ping me if you want to discuss this in more detail!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral per the above. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose The blurb being phrased as "the deadliest so far this year" is not encouraging in terms of newsworthiness in context. Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on article quality. The blurb can be de-escalated, but the article seems rather weak if this is considered the deadliest such attack. It's clearly a ITN-post type event, but the quality should be improved. --M asem (t) 05:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree that article quality is not suitable as yet. I could support if that is resolved. Pigeonholing the blurb needed to be fixed: "against civilians" - has there been larger crimes against non-civilians?; "in Nigeria" - presumably this was needed to exclude the 600+ dead in Ethiopia; "this year" - just how routine is such violence there? Might it be cleaner to post "110 people were killed in the largest Boko Haram attack since [year X] "?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support news: for **bleep**'s sake it is a massacre. How can it be 'oppose the news' for being not notable???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily notable enough. Although many mass murders have occurred in Nigeria in recent years, this is the most deadly there for years (against any target), as well as one of the more deadly massacres in the world this year. The Gubio massacre was also easily notable enough for ITN, but that article is far too short for it to have had a chance of being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is short, but well referenced and seems to have what is known so far. Topic is being covered adequately by reliable news sources.  Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Five sentences about the massacre itself.  There is also detail in the lead which is both unreferenced and not mentioned anywhere else in the article.  I don't think we post stubs with  unreferenced material.   The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * double voting?! Make sure to clarify which one is your "real" vote. 108.27.210.118 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers LL, I've addressed that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM. It's narrowly over the 1500 byte threshold, but I don't think the coverage in the main "Massacre" section is sufficient at the moment. Expand with more details, and we'll be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now good enough to post, IMO.(Not to be "that guy" but if this happened in the US the news would be all over it) Gex4pls (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll regardless of the insurgency. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some more info to the article and took out the unsourced info because I could not find anything about it.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Even though the article is short it's well referenced and stands comparable to other newly created conflicts/air crash articles that we usually post. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Death toll is clearly significant, appears to be the largest death toll for a single Boko Haram attack this year, the largest death toll for a single Boko Haram attack in many years, and the second-largest terrorist attack of the year based on this list. Article is also well-cited.  Only reason this is "weak" is that the writing quality of the article could be better. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I came to support based on improvements in the article, but in checking the recent references I see that the death toll has been revised down to 43, or "dozens", with "about" 15 kidnappings. None of the blurbs work now. If RSs can't come up with a precise figure and we can't post "about dozens", then I can't see a way forward with this.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it was revised "down to 43". It is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koshebe_massacre&oldid=991711513 still 110] in the infobox and this the Washington Post and UK's Guardian's figure. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC from the in-article sources. "More than 43" and "dozens" and "about" and so on. The blurb will have to be worded to get this imprecision in casualties across. Note that this article revising the casualties does comes a few days after those publications claiming a precise 110.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – At 450 words the article seems rather thin for an event in which 110 people reportedly were killed. Much of the text is background and reactions; the massacre description totals 211 words. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove Ongoing: Tigray Conflict
Just yesterday pm announced he's sending in forces to end it. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:B525:8A17:4F58:B411 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in ongoing the timing of this nomination seems impeccable!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal – Keep in ongoing. Still very much going on.  – Sca (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not disputing that the EVENT is ongoing, but that the article fails to document this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support removal based on article's length. I agree that an item staying in ongoing for two weeks needs a substantially more extensive article with more frequent updates that go deeper into details than the one-sentence weekly reports coupled in a single paragraph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has seen split-offs and other cut downs that is perhaps why its not looking up to the mark. Timeline of the Tigray conflict and other related articles (see Category:Tigray conflict) are receiving significant updates and not everything has to be in the main article. Though I agree that the main article needs work that is no reason for an ongoing removal especially when the conflict is clearly ongoing, in the news and while taking these other articles into account. Gotitbro (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – "Ethiopian PM claims capture of Tigray capital." – Sca (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the conflict is definitely over. Banedon (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still ongoing. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment At least one side of this conflict considers it over now. If this turns into a familiar, low-level intercene insurgency, it should definitely go. Article is absolutely too short to convey the sort of significance that people seem to think that it does.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal of this article. This article itself is not receiving enough updates to qualify for main page ongoing status.  If there is a different article that has been receiving updates, please suggest that one to swap out with this one.  The conflict may be being covered by news sources, but the article as linked on the main page is not a good representation of that, and should not still be linked unless and until it is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would be rather odd to remove the entry just at the precise moment when matters are coming to a head. The battle for Mekelle ended two days ago, and perhaps that's the end of the story, but it's still ITN for the moment and we can re-evaluate in a few days time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – On Nov. 30 Spiegel reported that in Tigray "tens of thousands of people are fleeing massacres, looting and rape to Sudan." – Sca (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Also on Nov. 30, AlJazeera said "more than 43,000 [Tigrayans] have fled to neighbouring Sudan." – Sca (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Where in the linked Wikipedia article can I read about this? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the Timeline of the Tigray conflict is being updated, and since this target article links there too, I don't see a major issue here. Think laterally.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Hsieh

 * Support Article is well-sourced. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Unexpected and tragic death. Article is probably C or B class. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good and unexpected/unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. RIP. Tragic and a life lost much much too early. Please can an experienced editor read the article to see if the article reads like a Linkedin bio / resume? I remember this was a concern with a different internet entrepreneur sometime back. This is not an oppose vote. Ktin (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Essentially ready, but given Hsieh's lengthy tenure at Zappo's, could possibly use some expansion there to give it increased depth. The NYT obit and CNN story have additional details (initial rejected sale to Amazon, corporate culture, etc.).  Spencer T• C 18:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Spencer, thanks to your NYT link, paragraph added about Zappos which was indeed extraordinary. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Not flashing here. Just a headline. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:B525:8A17:4F58:B411 (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) You said he was killed. That IS an assassination. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:B525:8A17:4F58:B411 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This may be as explosive as the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, depending on how the news pans out. Article is definitely not a stub. Albertaont (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quite a shocking assassination Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: added a blurb per Albertaont.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb this will be in the news in Iran + its neighbours for a while, possibly the rest of the world as well, and might have international consequences. Banedon (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's now a page called "Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh", so support blurb but wait until it's no longer a stub. Davey2116 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely inappropriate for WP to be calling it an assassination. "Apparent assassination" as per CNN is correct as it is the claim of Iran. He was clearly attacked and killed, but whether this an assassination is yet known. --M asem (t) 19:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we really taking state media claims at face value and blurbing them now? Did someone else even verify the killing/assassination or even the death? And can someone confirm if he actually was as instrumental to the Iranian nuclear program as is being portrayed in the media. Seems like media and political hype to me and not encyclopedic ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NYTimes called him the closest thing to an Iranian Oppenheimer in 2014. Wall Street Journal called him Tehran’s atomic weapons guru in 2012. The Guardian reported that he was believed to be in charge of Iran’s nuclear program in 2010.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The media are at least treating that Fakhrizadeh was killed as legit, but they are putting caution on the claim it was an assassination (particularly one performed by Israel). It's fair we treat the killing as verified but put the assassination with the same bit of doubt. --M asem (t) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with that, just unsure about the specific process. Should I propose another alt where I just change assasination to killing, or will the posting admin edit accordingly?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just add an alt blurb. I have done so. -- KTC (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Convinced about his stature and that the death isn't being doubted. But only a confirmed assassination would make this blurb worthy. I would vote Support for RD and Wait for blurb but the article is too poor/stubby for either of them, so my oppose stands. Gotitbro (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm completly agree with you. We must Wait before Blurb, but Support RD, until further consecuencies, if there are, that I'am afraid that will be. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Assassination of a high-profile physicist in the Iranian nuclear programme is a big deal with high potential for further implications. Also, the story is already top news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD – Wait re blurb. It's not as if Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was a household name in the English-speaking world. Perpetrator(s) unknown. What may happen as a result of this event is pure speculation at this pt. – Sca (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD the fork for the "killing" article seems premature and unnecessary given the BLP is only barely C-class and a few hundred words. Suggest merging the detail back into the main article and opting for RD only.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is madness, we have a stub BLP target and a stub "killing" article. The merge needs to happen before there can be any consideration of posting here.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not even RD worthy let alone a blurb (that is even if it was notable). Gotitbro (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, at least lets have 1 article that may turn out to be RD worthy JW 1961   Talk  23:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying the obvious There are more sources and the article is better developed than all but 1 of the RDs posted right now. Albertaont (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Highly unusual death. Targeted assassinations of major political/military/scientific figures seem to be becoming a habit of certain states. Also, we posted both the murder of Soleimani and Khashoggi, as well as the alleged assassination attempt against Skripals. This is on the same scale. CoronaOneLove (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Hmmm, this'll be interesting. Definitely news worthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Nothing has happened except that Khamenei and Rouhani have darkly vowed the usual enlightened response: Revenge. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: For an academic, his career section is almost entirely devoted to what he did after 2007, except for 2 sentences. Needs more thorough coverage (if available) to be RD ready.  Spencer T• C 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Major news item. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb Per instructions: . The opposite is the case here; the death is notable for the manner in which is occurred and for the likely repercussions. This should go up as a regular blurb, and at the moment I don't see any particular problem with the article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is consensus to post. Previously, there were opposes based on the stub of the article, its fair to say those have been well resolved by now. Albertaont (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either RD or blurb. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Doesn't seem that significant in the grand scheme of things. Not sure about RD - leaning oppose too, on quality. The article is a bit of a mess of one-line tidbits right now, for example "The killing has been compared to that of Qasem Soleimani, which was reciprocated by an Iranian missile attack", which gives no real insight into who made such a comparison, and what they thought its relevance was. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This is a very significant development for the country of Iran, and the world, considering it was the assassination of a scientist. Maqdisi117 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only in a way it's been good this was delayed because it's clear that this has dropped off news reporting so RD only. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale for a blurb, but still okay for RD. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD now article has been improved. -- P-K3 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George H. Carley

 * Support Nice little article, decently sourced JW 1961   Talk  12:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Clean article. C-Class Bio. Well referenced. Good to go. Request the posting Admin to start from the bottom of the stack. Ktin (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: F. C. Kohli

 * Support Everything looks properly sourced to me. Mlb96 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Another one looks good to go on RD JW 1961   Talk  22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sadiq al-Mahdi

 * Oppose for now, I've added tags for where additional citations are needed - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose cn tags need to go, otherwise consider a support from me if those are fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sadly, a day later the CN's remain JW 1961   Talk  13:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * * Change to Support - nice job fixing this article JW 1961   Talk  23:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we have another look at this? The CN's have been fixed. Joofjoof (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nice job fixing the cn tags.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ready for posting, ? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Apologies, I don't think I got a ping notification for this one and I've only just seen it, don't know where the notification went! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edward Lazear

 * Support Well sourced, look good for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request another pair of eyes on this one. Agree with JW, and I think this can go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Much appreciated. Often times, economics articles tend to get too complex very soon, but, this one reads good. Also, if someone wants to get some of Lazear's thoughts outside of this article, watch this short video. RIP. Ktin (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Flor Silvestre

 * Oppose on quality. Flor Silvestre, Flor Silvestre, Flor Silvestre, and other sections has uncited material. Once those is fixed I will support. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per the above quality concerns, ping if fixed and I will re-look at this JW 1961   Talk  11:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José de Bastos

 * Support Short but RD passable. Gotitbro (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above, short but what is there is well sourced JW 1961   Talk  13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - this one was technically stale, as he died on the 23rd and the bottom entry was already the 24th. But I'm feeling generous, so it can sit at the bottom of the list for a few hours. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacque Secrétin

 * Support Needs expansion but I think still okay for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yes short but adequate for RD, well sourced JW 1961   Talk  22:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Markus Paul

 * Weak support Playing career could be expanded but passes for a RD. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Clean article, but, can we attempt a round of expansion before we finalize this one? Agree with that this one seems quite thin. Also, a matter of personal stylization, but, I would suggest removing sub-headings within the playing career section if there are only one line entries underneath each of them. Ktin (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Had a 4-year NFL career and was an All-American in college. Not in a state of posting without further expansion of college and NFL career sections.  Spencer T• C 18:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, nominator has recently expanded the article and I believe it is now sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support adequate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Wolfensohn

 * Oppose Numerous CN tags, not yet fit for rd. Gex4pls (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , of course, I was the one who added those tags. I have filled them in now. Have a look. I will be awake for ~2 hours for any edits. Cheers Ktin (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed my oppose to a Support, as all the tags have been cited, and the Gex4pls (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC) article is good to go.


 * Support Looks pretty good. Gotitbro (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one? I believe this is ready to go. Ktin (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Japan Series

 * Support Well sourced, lots of prose, fitting the template of past years. In a normal year, I would've worked on this page with Torsodog and would be a co-nom, but it's 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again?! I'm starting to wonder whether this league deserves its ITNR listing if it's always won by the same team. In the last four years the Hawks have won the Japan Series 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 and 4-2 (in games). They won two of the previous three years too, so 6 of the last 7 championships overall. That does not suggest a competitive league. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Boston Celtics once won 12 championships in 14 years.331dot (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, is there any evidence that fans and/or the media are less interested? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just look at the winner of the Japan Series to determine the competitiveness of an entire league. While the Hawks do happen to be a powerhouse at the moment, you must also take into account that NPB's playoff system is designed specially so that the best regular-season teams advance. That isn't how MLB's and other leagues playoff formats are necessarily designed. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They have a dynasty. My Yankees won the World Series in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and should've won 2001 too. Stupid bloop single. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a nonsense argument. Manchester United won the Premier League something like 13 times in 21 years but no-one has ever suggested that the PL is not a competitive league.  Try again.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support debate the ITNR-ness at WT:ITNR. This is a good example of an ITNR article which has been kept up to snuff and so is ready to go at a moment's notice.  Nice. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine, ITNR nom. Gotitbro (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been good to go for several hours now. Come on.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Lithuanian PM

 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the Šimonytė article looks okay, the Prime Minister of Lithuania is rubbish.  I note there's no bold target in the blurb, so let's be careful before posting that we select the one(s) which are up to scratch. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't ITNR for the office holders? I've gone ahead bolded Šimonytė as that is what it should be and what the nominator likely meant. Gotitbro (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Simonyte’s article good. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Diego Maradona

 * Support blurb and what a pleasant surprise to see the article in such good order. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article in excellent shape and absolutely blurb-worthy. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Absolutely textbook example of someone who was at the top of their field and where the death itself is also generating coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurbper nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb. I'll probably be accused of acting too quickly, but I can't see this being anything other than WP:SNOW. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like ITN beat CNN to this. That's fast. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  16:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What about a pic of him?. I'm really shocked by his death btw. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, a pic is up there now, the article's main 2012 image. We can't use any of the older ones from his playing days unfortunately, as they all seem to be marked as ineligible under US copyright law even though they're public domain in Argentina. And should probably even be removed from the article as they are liable to be deleted from Commons. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. I don't think this was too fast, I cannot envision another outcome than a blurb. A RD is definitely too little for a player like this. Regards So  Why  16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If is possible to post something too fast, then 8 minutes is too fast. The argument for waiting is giving others a chance to see and weigh in; either that is a thing we value or it is not. Guessing that other editors will agree may get you in trouble (see RBG).  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support good decision to post as blurb JW 1961   Talk  16:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Argetinian or Argentine?  I thought modern parlance favoured the latter? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I did a very cursory look before posting and it seemed like Argentinian was correct. A somewhat less cursory look has shown that to be untrue through, at best they're equal. So I've deferred to the nom and your comment here and amended it to "Argentine". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Not many sportspeople that meet the standard, but Maradona is one. It is the leading news story in many top RS and the words "legendary" and "greatest of all time" are in many of the headlines. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I was amazed to see the ITN ticker updated so quickly over the past hour. Normally blurb discussions like this drag on for ages before making it to the ticker. I think this got posted even faster than Stephen Hawking's blurb.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the "PULL!" comments are coming. I'm not bothered by it. He's one of the few "footy" players (present or former) whose name I recognized instantly when I saw it on my news ticker. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is in incredible shape. It's about as detailed as the article for Roger Clemens if not more so. Any calls for a pull would be WP:POINTY.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That helps. I guess I can cite Maradona when Clemens passes. Hopefully not soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-blurb-ing support One of the five greatest players (and many have argued one of the three greatest, or the one greatest) ever in the world's biggest sport, with an article in absolutely excellent shape. I don't think there are many no-brainer death blurbs, but this is one. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't resist adding comment to commend the quick posting. The article's profundity is amazing too. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of principle, I would prefer nominations to have more than 8 minutes of discussion before being posted. But I support blurb and agree that WP:SNOW applied. It's a pleasant surprise to find we have a high quality article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb support - Great article in good shape and the subject of the article is what I would consider to fall under the "Thatcher-Mandela-Hawking-Connery" rule as often used when posting blurb deaths here. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Not to pile on here, but there's sound logic in posting this, given that basically he and Pele are pretty much the defining figures of assc football in the 20th century + the article quality was already top notch at the time of nomination. I know I justified when I posted Stephen Hawking as quickly as I did when it had similar support then, this is just as open+shut a case. --M asem (t) 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It led on both the Guardian and BBC (not merely their sport pages), so the transformative figure in his field clause is likely satisfied, and of course the noteworthy reaction has been forthcoming. rawmustard (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb old man dies long past the end of his career is exactly what RD is for. Maradona is one name on the FIFA 100 and I see no reason for his routine passing to be a blurb. Lionel Messi dying now, at the height of his career maybe, not this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear oh dear. Death at 60 is far from "routine" for a professional footballer who is considered the greatest of all time.  What was routine about his death?  You realise he was still coaching football into 2020?  Also, I suppose if you wish to exclude Maradona from a blurb, you'd be excluding people like Michael Jordan, Carl Lewis, Wayne Gretzky, Jack Nicklaus, Lance Armstrong, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Nadia Comăneci etc etc.  How odd.   The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment While I would've supported this, can the admins catch a break ( here)? At least wait for sometime don't just push deaths in minutes (let me emphasize "minutes") even if its chock full of support votes. Same was the case with Bader and that's how you get people asking for time limits on posting deaths. Gotitbro (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, you said so yourself, this was post-worthy, a no-brainer. It's just shit-stirring now to start to claim it shouldn't have been posted.  We either have an agreed time delay (we don't) or we don't (we don't), so nothing untoward occurred here, and since it's absolutely universal approval for a blurb, Laserlegs excluded, there's literally nothing to see here.  Move along, move along. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better still, let's see how many readers complain that we posted the biggest RD of recent times in a timely fashion shall we? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Patel

 * Comment - one citation needed at the top of the political career section, and ref [12] is both a dead-link and a bare URL. Once those things fixed, should be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks much Amakuru and good catch on the dead-link / bare-URL. Fixed both issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Almost feel apologetic asking this on a day like today, but, any additional pairs of eyes on this one? Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. No obvious issues. Decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in agreement with above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bruce Boynton

 * Oppose Personal details are incomplete: Early Life has more details on his parents than the subject himself. Potentially COPYVIO: entire sentences are lifted from sources verbatim, seems especially problematic with the sources 2 & 3, which are used in this manner throughout.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Date of birth is good but not mandatory. Also, I just ran the Earwig tool, and I dont find something egregious. There is the quote from the judge (which obviously has to be verbatim). Yes, there can be some expansion on early life + career, if information is available. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Legal career needs expansion. A quick look at sources mentions that he was the lawyer in the Mapp v. Board of Education case that de-segregated Chattanooga schools. Possible sources include, , .  Spencer T• C 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mamadou Tandja

 * Support blurb Article, sourcing look fine (could use some layout changes). Major leader in Niger and Africa, I think this merits a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (RD) Decent article, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fred Sasakamoose

 * Support Looks good. But, please either source or remove the "Survivors Speak Report" blockquote. Gotitbro (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christophe Dominici

 * Comment. This will need much more sourcing ("Club and international honours" is entirely uncited at present) and an extension of the lead text. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Gave the citations a good shot across the board. I think it is well sourced right now. But, that said, I think this article will benefit from a comprehensive re-write. Unfortunately, I know neither rugby nor French. If someone can give it a shot, I can lend an additional hand as well. Edits done. I learnt a little bit of rugby in the process. Did you know that goals are called "tries" in Rugby? Can you try to score a try? That said, truly sad end to a life. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclined to Support now, much improved from earlier thanks to Ktin, one CN left but I think that sentence "nightmare moment" could be just deleted if no source available (I couldn't find anything either) JW 1961   Talk  22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , My bad, I had that link figured out, but, missed updating the link and removing the cn tag. Just did that. I will also spend some time rewriting portions of the article. Really sad end. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * nice work, this now looks good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This is good to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Ramsey

 * Suppport decent enough, good work, not for the first time lately. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , wow that was quick! Thanks much John!
 * PS: If any of you are familiar with Rater.js tool, can you have a look at this article with the tool. It kept saying start class as I was editing and then, boom, it now says B class. I find that hard to believe. Ktin (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have knowledge of that tool, but I might use it in the future! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great tool, I use it on NPP as a lot of editors don't create talk page when creating articles JW 1961   Talk  22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Mai Kadra massacre

 * Xinhua? – Sca (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Reuters attributes this report to Ethiopia’s state-appointed human rights commission. – Sca (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has this been independently verified by any reputable independent source? There seems no evidence other than the say-so of a single body sponsored by the Ethiopian state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the EHRC report provides detail to what was first reported by Amnesty International. --Varavour (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tigray is already on ongoing and we are not going to post every single update related to that on ITN (just like we did not for Nagorno Karabakh) and clearly not give air to state-sponsored reports of massacres. (On a side note I wouldn't cite Xinhua even in noms). Gotitbro (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose for now. If the Amnesty report cited above is independent of the EHRC and is reported on separately then I think this demands attention, but the blurb needs to be updated to reflect that. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am tilting towards support but both the blurbs don't do justice. The first makes it seems as if only the EHRC has verified the massacre and the second takes the EHRC's 600 number at face value (Amnesty does not confirm them and gives vague estimates). Need a better blurb to judge this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support despite being on ongoing, a massacre of 600+ people demands attention. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's "stale" but I guess we just found out about it and the article is much better than the rubbish currently featured in ongoing --LaserLegs (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A massacre of 600 people aimed at ethnic cleansing is not something that we see frequently. Despite the conflict being already posted to ongoing, this is an event that merits a blurb on its own.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well it has been reported by the Xinhua (even though Sca has removed that link) so it isn't just NATOist atrocity propaganda, although the involvement of amnesty international is concerning. Support on notability, though I'd love to references to organizations that are not paid off by Washingtonian think-tanks that certify the measure of 600+ deahts as plausible CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the link – I merely questioned the reliability of state-owned Xinhua as a source in the small-font note at the top of this page. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Story has been mostly absent from primary Eng.-lang. RS sites. However, today Reuters says "African envoys" headed for Ethiopia to investigate. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um what? Neither is Ethiopia/TPLF a member of or connected to the NATO nor is the Xinhua report critical of the Ethiopian government (attributed to the TPLF and China enjoys rather good relations with Ethiopia which is why Xinhua was being opposed/subsequently removed). Gotitbro (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he's trying to say that it could be agitprop for NATO to intervene in Ethiopia. They're already right next door. In any case he negated his own point.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This happened over two weeks ago. Could have supported a nom for it then, but if you consider ITN this would have aged off the list by now. And this is already part of "ongoing". Albertaont (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support news: massacre. Also the blurbs are fine.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, sadly. The motivating factor for our posting this seems to be the declaration by members of Ethiopia's government. This was in the news 12-14 November, from Amnesty and other international groups. I would have strongly supported then, regardless of whether it was in Ongoing or not. As it is, it is stale, and the declarations by political figures are covered by Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The further announcement by the government has only lead to more recent coverage than the initial reports by other organizations. Gotitbro (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support even though late, still a major disaster resulting in the deaths of hundreds. The fact that it's late doesn't really mean anything, as these things often take a while to be reported on. Gex4pls (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment wondering what is holding this news back. Two other news, one about baseball and one on a new political leader, in my opinion are less important news than this. Then a third "news" which is really an RD on surprise yawn surprise football. This news on a massacre is important.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Independent confirmation remains dubious. No longer in the RS news. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Chang'e 5

 * Comment. The arrival of the probe at its destination will be WP:ITNR. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per how we've framed space exploration events in ITNR and the shortness of this mission, the better point to post this, presuming a successful mission, will be on Dec 16-17th after it has returned from the moon with samples, the end of a successful lunar sampling mission. While getting to the moon is arguably an ITNR "getting to its destination" its not going to spend much time there and thus might as well wait for the return. Would be willing to consider if it gets to the moon then fails, as that Indian moon lander had done, as a post as well. --M asem (t) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with Masem. Let's wait & see if it succeeds in bringing back moon rocks or green cheese. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. In addition to the above statements, if any of you is holding the pen on this article -- please fix the article for tense. E.g. most portions of the article is written as "launch is expected on November 24". Also, a dedicated prose section on the mission is required. E.g. section from the most recent mission to the ISS here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is insufficient for main page. Several parts have not been updated and still speak of the launch as taking place in the future.  If those issues are fixed, consider this a full support without having to ping me to make me change my vote again.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the time sensitive part. Can't find other time sensitive sentences. Someone else can help fix them if they bother to. Makes it more difficult when I hadn't written any part of the article. Right now I wish to log off. It also seems some people only prefer a space news when a mission becomes successful. Hhhmmmmm...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * People want something substantial to be there in the blurb (failed launch, failed/successful landing, return etc.) rather than simply a barebones launch. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * An ITNR is the successful launch of a new rocket, but this doesn't seem to be a new rocket. It's a mission with a rather short term (3-4 weeks) end so it seems better to wait for that point. --M asem (t) 21:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle once a successful takeoff. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 21:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)u

(Posted) David Dinkins

 * Support: Article seems to be in pretty good shape. I've made a couple minor fixes and added a missing reference; others may see more to clean up or fill in, but it looks to me like it's good enough quality to post this now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality on a couple of uncited paragraphs (not to mention no prose update for his death). Also no blurb for this one, although Giuliani might warrant one when the time comes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just added a prose section on his death, also mentioning his wife's death just last month. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an uncited paragraph in "Mayoralty", some uncited stuff in "A 2009 lookback", and one uncited paragraph in "Personal life", otherwise it looks good. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine and a good, interesting nom. Some dangling sentences but those just require ref re-arrangements rather than being a case of missing refs. Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support concerns now look addressed JW 1961   Talk  14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support should be all sourced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now Jgreyes (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a couple of cites still needed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed in BLP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment marking as attention needed. Either the cite issues need fixing, or it must be pulled. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled pending citation issues. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Went in and added citations. Should be good now.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I caught one more CN tag. Looks ready. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Oldham (basketball)

 * Comment . The lead needs a bit of expansion, it's just a single sentence at the moment. Eveyrthing else looks OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amakuru, I've added a lead - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Good work, and thanks for fixing the issue above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted): Tarun Gogoi

 * Oppose for now, needs lots of references added to be brought up to RD standards JW 1961   Talk  19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support Much improved article, ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Article is good to go to homepage / RD. Meets hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Gave the article a comprehensive re-write. Citations are good. Content development is good. Passes the 'Spencer' test., please give it a read. Happy to make additional edits. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is very much improved with the good work by Ktin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping. Pardon the intrusion. This page is ready for the homepage / RD. Please can you help with the posting. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Booker Prize

 * Comment. Plot summaries do not need to be sourced as one can read the book to confirm the plot. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Makes sense. Thanks. With that the book seems well sourced. Ktin (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Though if there are third-party summaries RSes that can be sourced, it cannot hurt to include them. Further, if any interpretation/analysis of the plot is done, that must include sourcing from an RS to avoid the OR factor. --M asem (t) 14:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While we can keep the nom here for visibility, this was announced Thursday and should be pegged there for roll-off purposes. At the moment, it would still be the top (most recent) item.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure the article doesn't need two non-free images (they aren't the subject of any contextual commentary, so having two fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). I would suggest removing the US one. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We generally use the cover of the first publication which would be the US version in this case. --M asem (t) 15:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , -- Done. Removed one of the images. Please feel free to revert / change if anything else is required there. Ktin (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but needs appropriate italics in the blurb. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment While the target article here is the novel, the article for the author needs work (is very stubby). Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Edits and expansion done. Douglas Stuart article is now at the boundary of a start-class and C-class biography. Looks good imho. Ktin (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Quinn

 * Comment An article appears to have been started now but I am not sure about the notability of the subject for a separate article. Creator of a one-time social media phenomenon (Ice Bucket Challenge) but is he notable beyond just that. Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the article should be good. The impact is more than a viral meme. Lots of good work has happened / has been enabled. Ktin (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As the sourced article exists I believe the notability is deemed established. Decently sourced and suitable for RD  JW 1961   Talk  14:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one. The article looks clean and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurice Setters

 * Support Well sourced, look good for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Teemu08 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose on sourcing + content. Please have a re-look at the sources, many of the sources are web-forums / discussion boards. I have taken a pass at tagging a few of them. Also, there is no content in the main body on Maurice as a person (including mention of his death, outside of the lede), I know this has been asked for in a few RDs. Ktin (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait: Ktin is right. I missed that sourcing issue in my quick look earlier and this should not be posted until rectified. I’ll see if I can take a look at finding some better sources tomorrow. Thanks for spotting this - Dumelow (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready?: Ktin, I've given it a bit of an overhaul, replaced that source and expanded a little. Hopefully it should now be ready - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work . I struck my oppose vote. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Any chance you can find something about his early life and add that? That will nicely round up the bio. Wow, I searched for that, absolutely nothing that I could find on a quick search. That said, this is good to go to homepage in its current state. Ktin (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. RIP Maurice, a true Coventry City F.C. hero - this was before my time, but he was instrumental in keeping the club in the top flight in the late 1960s. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hamish MacInnes

 * Comment: Added a [CN] tag to the psych hospital-related content; article could use a tad more expansion about his career but I'm not opposed.  Spencer T• C 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The infobox on the RHS needs to be fixed. Ktin (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Spencer. I'm a bit limited on time today but I've cited his illness and expanded a little on that and his film work. Ktin, per WP:Infobox, they are purely optional - Dumelow (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Added the infobox including a minorly cropped image. Did a round of edits. Article is well sourced. And, wow - the last paragraph was just too tragic to read. RIP. This is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Expanded content. Clean B-class biography. Sources good. Good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, the carousel moved past too fast. RIP Mr. MacInnes. And, folks wanting to see something about the man - here goes. Ktin (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi

 * Posted to RD. Thorough coverage of life; well-referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support in case someone gets all up-tight about a good call from a trusted admin about an article nominated by a trusted editor. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't have African leaders on the front-page you know. Gotitbro (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lupo (dog)

 * Support in ok shape. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 18:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Interesting nom. Gotitbro (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2020 US Presidential Election disputes
Could someone(s) knowledgeable with ITN criteria consider this article for inclusion? Feoffer (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As the legal challenges are not expected to accomplish anything, I think it is premature to consider this. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's premature to consider this even though it's been in the news for a while. We still don't know how this is going to end up, so it's reasonable to wait until something concrete happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly a subject for Ongoing, as it certainly is going on, and on, and on....  Article title is obviously way too long. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Support until the EC votes. The MAGAts will never accept the results, but the legal challenges will cease after December 14. I think really it should be merged with MAGA terrorist attacks since it's all the same bat shit conspiracy theories and basement dwellers but on two separate tracks. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is an issue if Trump refuses to transfer power come Jan 20 2021, but the attempts to dispute the election are mostly considered as jokes by political experts and the media until then. Yes, its all over the US news but only because it is slowing down the transition of power, but it is not "news news". (Also, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, but there's something that seems not NPOV on that article. For 2016, there was a section in the election article about post-election events and I feel this should be part of that, not standalone, and that would be part of the way to fix it). --M asem (t) 14:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may not be "news news", but it is in fact "in the news" which is what we do around here ... --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is part of the media's overt focus on US politics that we have to purposely overlook as a global encyclopedia. --M asem (t) 15:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do? Nifty, could you show me where that is in the guidelines I can't find it --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not interesting any longer. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's nothing "apparent" about this. Biden IS the President-elect. In terms of legal challenges, Trump's campaign team is working from that asserted fact, and they have been batting below the Mendoza line in all of their attempts to overturn that. Unless something truly dramatic occurs like a legislature or canvassing board going rogue and countervening the will of the voters, this is essentially a non-story. WaltCip- (talk)  15:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose come on.... Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bad title, something better for ongoing would be 2020 United States election protests. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support first time that it was this bad in USA history. Something like this just doesn't happen frequently. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Will remain as mere internal jockeying unless there is a highly unlikely mass faithless voting in the Electoral College. Even Senator Toomey has acknowledged the exhaustion of any legal challenges in the commonwealth he represents, Pennsylvania, and thus congratulated Biden. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Wanna be strongman has a sad, files frivolous lawsuits that wouldn't even change the results of the election if he won every single one. Call me when there's an actual coup attempt. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not making the headlines here, even when I scrolled down to the International section (dominated by the news from Belarus). Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Devi Priya

 * Slight support Well sourced, but there are a few areas where more could be used. There's also a line or two that are repeated. Gex4pls (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consolidated a few refs. Looks good now. Appreciate an additional pair of eyes. Ktin (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Just needs a citation at "Andhra Pradesh government's Nandi film award", should be good to go after that, will support when ready (ping me)  JW 1961   Talk  17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks a lot JW. I have updated with a citation / ref, and a wikilink to the award as well. Please have a look and let me know if I can make any additional edits. Ktin (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced now looks ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Guatemalan protests

 * Still needs work but no longer a stub. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality but the Congressional Building seems major, especially if major damage occurred to it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support No longer a stub, more developments should occur in the coming days.. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now while still a stub JW 1961   Talk  00:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article doesn't go into enough detail about the arson to gauge its notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added that the building was on fire for 10 minutes. But the length of time and amount of damage is immaterial. Would we ask this question if the Palace of Westminster was on fire for even 1 minute due to protests? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't click Twitter links. When the extent of the damage is known, and the article reflects the same, as reported by reliable sources, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

*Wait A lot of protests are happening worldwide because of the pandemic and I think only especially notable ones should be blurbed. I can't really gauge the whole protest scene here at the moment and would like to see if they sustain or grow (though even then a better place would probably be the Ongoing section). Gotitbro (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Petered out very quick. Gotitbro (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose For now. In a year where many protests get as many as 50 to 100k people, 7000 may not cut it (though these protests may escalate, as they often have a habit of doing.) Gex4pls (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest close. I used to sit with more than 7,000 "protestors" every other Saturday at Portman Road when crowds were allowed at football matches.  This is really borderline insignificant. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the news itself . Caught my, and my news's, attention. Someone with the energy can expand the article if it is still short.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No new developments since that day so this news is getting old. No longer a support.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Minor damage to a building that is not significant enough for a stand alone article does not seem worth noting to me. Large protests are now normal, they do not warrant our attention.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oliver Friggieri

 * Comment I've added Citation Needed tags throughout, if these are fixed I would support JW 1961   Talk  00:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citation needed tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Full of unsourced statements, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose miles off. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated, the CN's have been resolved. Should be good now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * please take a look as well. Joofjoof (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Very nice job on the sourcing! Looks good. Can you take a pass at the lede. Seems like that can be improved. With or without that change, I think this can go to homepage / RD, given that the window of opportunity is very limited and the carousel might move past any moment now. Ktin (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Great work Joofjoof, turning this from being "miles off" into a decent article. Please do have a look at expanding the lead, per Ktin comment above, but I won't hold it up on that score. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I have added to the lede section as well. Joofjoof (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Judith Jarvis Thomson

 * Oppose too much material in there is unreferenced, and I'm not sure about using a caricature image for a recently deceased individual. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and I would also think the use of the caricature is disrespectful JW 1961   Talk  21:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ajay Desai

 * Support Short article but not a stub, decently sourced JW 1961   Talk  00:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Written well and sourced well enough. Gex4pls (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Making ready. The article meets the hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jorge Horacio Brito

 * Support Nicely tidied up today by Ktin, well referenced JW 1961   Talk  00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Appreciate an additional pair of eyes. I think this might be good to go. Ktin (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted (I removed a sentence which seemed to duplicate detail and didn't seem well sourced before doing so). Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rita Sargsyan

 * Oppose Too short even for an RD, needs expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citation Needed tag, as well as way too short. Gex4pls (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Irinej, Serbian Patriarch

 * Support Looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree. Elserbio00 (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The Bishop of Niš needs references. One is a broken link and the other one links to somewhere else. Actually, these two links are used in many places in the article, so fixing is needed. --Tone 09:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose two [citation needed] in there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks ok now, posting. --Tone 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this was posted nearly 10 hours ago but two other nominations which were clearly ready are still waiting, why is this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kirby Morrow

 * Comment Needs an overhaul, most of the article is filmography tables, that too unsourced. Need career and early life (death if unusual) sections in prose to compensate for the large tables (article would be a stub without these tables). Gotitbro (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced, almost nothing about him, and no prose mention of his death. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above two comments - bare urls one of which is twitter! JW 1961   Talk  12:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost entire article unsourced or stubby. Gex4pls (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan Morris

 * Comment What's there looks reasonably well referenced, though could be expanded to discuss some of her best known works.  Books need ISBNs.  Jheald (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I would very much like to be able to voice my support since Morris was a great writer, but at the moment the article has almost nothing about her work. Yakikaki (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks quite a bit better, not least thanks to Dumelow. Yakikaki (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Works can be expanded, though it is fine for an RD even without them in prose. But most of the bibliography is unsourced, please cite it. Otherwise an interesting bio that deserves an RD spot. Gotitbro (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While I don't think it was necessary to spin-off the bib, the article does appear fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've split off the bibliography to a separate page (it unbalanced the article anyway) and added some commentary on her works. It could use some expansion but I think it is now sufficient for RD. Jheald, Yakikaki & Gotitbro, perhaps you culd take anothe rlook? - Dumelow (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved. P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems well referenced (I just added a few more sources). Funcrunch (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Digamber Hansda

 * Support, looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one? This looks all good for homepage / RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for your attention and move to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alexander Dubyanskiy

 * Support anyone good with images? There's a picture of him on the Russian Wikipedia article but it appears to have only been uploaded locally there rather than to Commons... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, I've transferred it across using Commons Helper - Dumelow (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Comment . Nice article. Clean Start class biography., I have added two and one  tag. Please can you have them fixed. Article is good to go to homepage / RD post that fix. Ktin (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ktin, looks like someone removed the uncited material that was added - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Nice nomination. Ktin (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Good to go. P-K3 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for your attention and move to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 22:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Trafford

 * Support good enough. Bad day for Port Vale... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been good to go for about 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Poole (footballer, born 1932)

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Okay for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been good to go for about 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 03:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Khadim Hussain Rizvi

 * Comment: I've tagged a couple of citations needed - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dumelow but can be assumed to support once those two statements are properly sourced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of weasel wording (including POV) even right there in the lead sentence "far right radical preacher", what is radical supposed to mean here? And half the article is "controversies" (which suffers from WP:RECENTISM) with nothing on his political career (or career/life at all). The article before his death read somewhat better than now. Gotitbro (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -  I have removed those two unsourced sentences and I think its good to go now. Depressed Desi (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . This article needs your attention and is ready to be posted unless their is a bias at play here. Depressed Desi (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose thanks for the ping, but there is an Oppose above regarding the balance and tone of the article, which has not been addressed. In particular that the only two sections are "early life" and "controversies". What about his actual career, and his bio after early life? Unfortunately I agree with Gotitbro that these issues should be addressed prior to posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. His biography is missing about 40 years of information.  There's almost nothing between his childhood and 2017.  Surely, something he did in that time has been recorded in a reliable source?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Thai Protests for Ongoing

 * Oppose for the same reasons we removed it last week. Sparse updates about insignificant developments. If there is more going on than assaults on Russian expats, put it in the article and I'll reconsider. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Massive protests are now commonplace. That we have posted them for so many different places in a short time should make this evident.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removed recently from ongoing and it was well laid out then why so, don't see any significant changes since to reconsider just because it has seen some uptick in coverage. Gotitbro (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I see updates about government actions in there and putting this on ongoing doesn't hurt (for "ongoing protests" anyway). Also, thank making me reconsider this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing democracy struggles will always be more encyclopedic for me than the trite WP:MINIMUMDEATHS blurbs and "commonplace" natural disasters.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above, and reasons for removal last week. This has been rumbling on for months now and the updates we're seeing don't look like major new developments likely to change the picture. There are lots of newsworthy stories in the world that are "ongoing" in a very long-term sense, including Brexit, climate change, and even the US presidential election which still seems to be generating headlines. But that is not what Ongoing is for, it's for when frequent significant changes are happening over a shortish period, each of which would be a contender for its own blurb if nominated individually. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per Bagumba. There has been renewed coverage in the Anglophone press recently. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present. In the past 10 days, article only has moderately detailed coverage for just Nov 17th. Based on article updates, this isn't regular or impactful enough to justify Ongoing placement at present.  Spencer T• C 03:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A couple thousand people show up to protest in a city of over 10 million? We mind as well post the MAGA march if thats the new standard. Albertaont (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Brereton report

 * Oppose – Target link is to a single, three-graph section of a longer article about Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict, concerning events that occurred in 2012-2013. – Sca (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I am not terribly keen on the phrasing of the current blurb but I do think this is sufficiently significant for ITN. A major public scandal. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support actual news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose if there are convictions yes, but otherwise this is just a report detailing an event many years ago. There is also no appropriate target article. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D44C:1877:1CDC:DF0F (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment --LaserLegs (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Relevant since major changes are occurring right now in AF, though yes convictions would be more convincing ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Big news about a shameful, disgraceful crime.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Is it "in the news?" Yes. Mostly similar to LaserLegs source, thanks for pointing that out. Albertaont (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Issue lacks worldwide coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not true, covered under international sections by most major newspapers around the world. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Invalid oppose in any case. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's Dutch and French coverage which appeared on 19 November. It's not just an Anglophone story. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, article is a decent start that will surely be expanded. Literally reported on the other side of the world (I know the UK has close associations with Australia but I think this is a story with wider international interest) - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can excuse shorter articles for an earthquake or terrorist incident that just happened. With so much time elapsed and data available, there is no reason for us to gloss over the paucity of this article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was briefly in the news but it's since more or less completely dropped off the front pages, which are still being dominated by the aftermath of the US election. Banedon (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You miraculously countered you own point. The US elections may be dominating, but other news exists (indeed in the UK, the US election is most certainly last week's news).  This is English language Wikipedia.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are going to post this it should be now, its fast running its ITN-time out. Gotitbro (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no time pressure, if posted now it would still be the top item on the template, both this and Arecibo Observatory are 19 November stories - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not clear cut consensus at this point; willing to have the nomination run a little bit longer.  Spencer T• C 22:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The report is an alleged crime but does not represent anything actionable at this point - it would be expected this would lead to something towards convictions but until that happens, this is not really the type of thing we'd post. --M asem (t) 19:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'd say that was a mistake to post as well. (And that there were opposed there along the same lines as here tells me I was not alone in that thought). --M asem  (t) 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support & ready Listed my arguemnts for support in the previous nom that has since been removed by a severly biased editor. Also, the first oppose is outdated (the article's no longer linking to a 3 paragraph section of another article). The second oppose is made by an IP editor who has not done any other edits in wikipedia at all. The third oppose is both wrong (there is global worldwide coverage as shown by other editors) and is invalid (ITN noms don't require global worldwide coverage). In total, I counted 8 yays and 3 nays for nom. Pinging again. CoronaOneLove (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am not sure completely removing the nomination initially was a good idea, removing the little statement would suffice. You could add yourself back in as nominator...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Count of 8 yays and 3 nays is correct. The last 3 opposes are valid but there is consensus to post. Albertaont (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support given news coverage. Blythwood (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

''' Oi!!! Admins!!!! This was marked ready 27 hours ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ''' HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And an admin weighed in - Spencer - indicating consensus does not exist to post. There are currently 7.5 or 8 supports to 6 oppositions.   GreatCaesarsGhost   00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted, referenced article, still in the news, Stephen 00:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-Post comment This article was nominated after Arecibo Observatory, also the damage to Arecibo Observatory and the announcement of the retirement happened before release of this report. If possible, please amend to the correct ordering? Albertaont (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Decommissioning of the Arecibo Observatory

 * Comment While I've been able to update the article to the current event, the article quality still is lacking (sourcing, etc.) --M asem (t) 17:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality An interesting development, though quality issues are present. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose sad but oh well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the section about the directors can just be removed. Damage section is in pretty good shape. The decommissioning makes it impossible to fire the goldeneye. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose nice trivia for a pub quiz, but nothing for the front page. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D44C:1877:1CDC:DF0F (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on significance: Arecibo's impact on astronomy and physics has been huge. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support even if the article quality isn't perfect, the Arecibo Observatory is one of the most historically significant astronomical observatories on the planet, as the place the first planets beyond the Solar System were ever discovered, as well as the very first neutron stars, not to mention dozens of smaller historic discoveries. The definitive end of something that iconic certainly deserves a feature of its own. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pedantic point: the first neutron star to be discovered was PSR B1919+21 by Jocelyn Bell at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, not Arecibo. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support behemoth of scientific research. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support significance, oppose on quality Sourcing issues are too significant to overlook.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support on significance alone but too many unsourced sections/paras for a burb. Gotitbro (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post posting support Nice to see some science related ITN after quite sometime which is clearly about an important topic. Gotitbro (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- though quality needs to be improved. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  04:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. 'Iconic' is an overused word, but Arecibo really is. It's not often that there's a definitive end for a telescope which is still at the forefront of its field. The article could do with a bit of tidying up, but it's not far off. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Of incredible encyclopedic significance.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - significant event. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment easily up to the standard we would post now. Consensus in favour, good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been working to clean up, and while I know there's probably more that can be improved, I feel its ready now compared to when I nom'ed this. --M asem (t) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, nice to see something with encyclopedic value being posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Iota redux

 * Oppose unremarkable and still only third in the list for this season of just Atlantic hurricanes.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, Hurricane Harvey was the 3rd deadliest atlantic hurricane in 2017... Gex4pls (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Equal costliest on record: remarkable. This one?  Not so. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against Harvey, but just because an atlantic hurricane season is remarkably deadly doesn't mean that the individual storms aren't. Put Iota in say, 2015, and this would probably easily get through. (plus, Many communities are still isolated by floodwaters and damaged infrastructure, so deaths are still being reported) Gex4pls (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is wholly unremarkable. I've said it before.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With all the crap occurring in 2020, this news pales in comparison with all the other hurricane news in the past month.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support but mention it was category 5. TheRambling Man will oppose no matter what. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a lie. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as definitely devastating enough, unfortunately. This is all over the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support In any other year a 40 death or greater natural disaster would probably get through ITN easy peasy. Gex4pls (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Widely covered in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: still not high enough. The "all over" news today is the Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. Nominate that for ITN, then I'll support.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, you or I can nominate it. We just need an article link. Cheers.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment update: 43 deaths now. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the article. Please fix the article, with references, so the article matches the blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look in the article. Here:Hurricane Iota. Everything is sourced, though most sources are in Spanish. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is now. When I made the statement, it wasn't.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - having seen some of the images of Iota's impact floating around on Social Media, I feel that this is ITN worthy. However, I would remove the part about the categories from the blurb since a category 5 cyclone means different things to different people.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because Hurricane Iota is the strongest hurricane of 2020, as well as the latest-forming category 5 hurricane ever observed. Furthermore, the number of deaths themselves appear to be notable and continue to grow. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The hurricane "hit" Central America a week ago and has dissipated. The scale of fatalities was substantial but neither unexpected nor atypical. Soon to be stale weather news. – Sca (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Iota hit on November 17 which would make it two and a half days ago. However, counting deaths could take many more days, even weeks before it settles.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted I freelanced a bit on the blurb, trying to closer match the standard format for blurbs we've used in the past naming the country where landfall occurred, and noting the greater regions of impact. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PP Comment Death count now 54 Gex4pls (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Just saw this and updated it.  Thanks for the heads up, in the future please use WP:ERRORS for more prompt response regarding blurb fixes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it's posted. May I suggest adding something like, "...two weeks after Hurricane Eta struck the same region and killed more than 100 people." Having two category 4 hurricanes with more than 200 deaths is pretty significant. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's barely interesting to have either of them on there, let alone to puff up the blurb. This happens every year without fail.  It's not news, it's "life".  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. There's never been two major hurricanes hitting Central America in the same season, let alone within two weeks of each other. Just because climate change is making weather disasters more common doesn't mean we should discount truly notable events like this one. Whether it's interesting is subjective, but it's still a tragedy. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Loads of crap going on lately. I'm also disgusted by the decision to release Scott Austic from prison. Let's go nominate that for ITN.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, two Cat 4 hurricanes are "loads of crap"? Please keep the discussion relevant. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes loads of cow manure. Another hurricane, it will become bull manure. Another, it will become dinosaur manure, etc. haha--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was already loads of manure in 2020 due to a certain virus...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How are two back to back Category 4 hurricanes cow manure... unless you mean just piling onto the shitstorm that is 2020, but we still have to be objective about what is truly important and notable. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just more 2020 piling up with more big stinking brown stuff, nothing bigger than covid. I'm more with putting up the disgusting release of a murderer than putting up "yet-another-bloody-hurricane".--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, other bad stuff has happened this year, but I want to focus on the fact that there's never been two major hurricanes hitting Central America in a single year. That's not just "yet another bloody hurricane", it's the first time that's ever happened, and it happened in a two week period to a single country. I just want to focus on that. A single murderer, while tragic, probably isn't worthy of being in the news for the entire site. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I feel the opposite. Hurricanes happen all the time. It's the first time ever happening that that murderer has gone free – worst decision, ever! No one can ever replace a human being. Definitely worthy of news, more so than another stinking hurricane...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But murderers going free happens regularly, as sad and frustrating as that might be. Never before on record did two major hurricanes (in fact two Category 4 hurricanes) hit Central America in the same season. If you feel so passionate about that murderer, consider gathering sources to make an article on him, if he meets notability guidelines. I'm just trying to keep this discussion on the hurricane(s). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in making an article right now, but if I did, he would definitely meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No one cares how strong hurricanes are. How strong a hurricane is does not correlate to how many die. Besides, a gazillion hurricanes already this year makes this one just another regular occurrence and another pile-up on the same boring news. In fact, a news about a released murderer would be more interesting for ITN since those news never appear here, unlike the gazillion hurricane ITNs already.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, this here is not, not, not a discussion about hurricanes. This here is a discussion about putting yet-another-bloody-hurricane onto ITN.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well my original comment here was about putting two bloody hurricanes onto ITN (not singular), since they were back to back in the same area (again, unprecedented for the area). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margaret Guilfoyle

 * Support okay to post, article in good nick, good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive and fully ref'd JennyOz (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see a few tags on the article. Please fix them before moving to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Has enough sources, could always use a few more, but this one is fine enough. Gex4pls (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  notable. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If the announcement was now its not stale, and article looks pretty fine. Gotitbro (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the two footnotes have been [citation needed] tagged, perhaps if or  could address those we can get this posted ASAP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've fixed those up. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arthur Imperatore Sr.

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be a good idea to expand the lead before posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brigade Piron, I've expanded this - Dumelow (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Boeing 737 MAX groundings

 * Support in principle but the blurb should mention how long it's been. I didn't look closely enough at the article to determine whether it's Main Page-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A single aircraft model getting to fly again in a specific territory is not ITN material and only of specific interest to enthusiasts. Neither did we post the more significant decommissioning (was posted but for worldwide groundings and along with an accident that caused them). Gotitbro (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to exaggerate your case like this? The 737 Max saga is of massive global interest and significance. I agree this page of the story is not so important as to post again, but it is not niche.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It seems 400+ 737Maxes remain grounded. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose one version of one manufacturer's type. This is just advertising and not interesting.  Would have been better to get the job done before hundreds of people were killed, this is just by the by. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment We posted the grounding as part of the Ethiopian Airlines blurb and it'd be nice to post the follow up instead of the usual disaster stub body count garbage we usually post. Target is orange tagged though. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you nailed it, we conflated the grounding with the second massive disaster, right? This would be just free publicity for Boeing.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well no, we conflated the disaster with the aircraft ignoring the dozens of times that competent pilots didn't soil their pants and let the flight director crash the plane ... for once we get to post the conclusion of a disaster story instead of just the death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's not a conclusion is it? It's just free advertising for Boeing that they get to sail they disaster-jet once more, hoping that the v2.0 software doesn't fuck up and kill hundreds more people.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, it'd be nice if under trained pilots don't panic and let the flight director crash their planes into the ground. Correcting a software issue that caused inexperienced (and perhaps unqualified) pilots to under react is certainly a conclusion. Did you know that some A320s vertical stabilizers can delaminate and fall apart. Can't fix that by flipping a switch! We should really post this, it's actually interesting and relevant aviation news. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not interesting in the slightest, it's an absolute commercial inevitability that an airframe with more than 4000 orders gets re-certified. Absolute no-brainer.  Boeing would probably go to the wall if not.  But let's post some free advertising for Boeing?  Nope.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not free advertising, just relevant civil aviation news that directly affects the traveling public --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% free advertising and literally no impact on the "traveling public" who have been using other aircraft type more than successfully since this lemon was withdrawn. It's a pure commerical decision (worth billions and billions of dollars) to get this back up and running, nothing more.  It's not for the good of the traveler, it's for Boeing's bottom line.  So advertise away, but a blurb for v 2.0 of shoddy software is not newsworthy in any sense. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, major news for the most successful type in aviation history. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No you missed what I was saying. This isn't major news and it's not relevant to anyone apart from Boeing who would love the free advertising.  When a piece of shit software kills loads of people it gets turned off.  When they can prove it stops killing people (i.e. adopts regular behaviour) it can be switched on again.  You're advocating to publicise that Boeing engineers finally fixed their bugs?  Seriously??!!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you missed what I was saying. This is major news and is relevant to civil aviation and the flying public, and is in no way "advertising" for Boeing. When piece of shit pilots can't turn off a feature and fly their planes manually, they crash and mass media has a freakout. Good news is, the bugs are fixed, and at least the vertical stabilizer won't disintegrate like that Airbus trash. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * USA! USA! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is sliding/has slid into WP:NOTFORUM category and should be collapsed. Consensus to post this is not going to develop anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Strong consensus against posting free advertising for bug fixes.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Sobol

 * Weak oppose at least two unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , happy to address them if you tell me what they are. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Already tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the single tag. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced, small article. KittenKlub (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an unreferenced paragraph in there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't want to but that single citation needed tag needs to go. Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the tag relates to his having published an autobiography which is already cited in the following section and is already verifiable, so I have removed the tag I have fixed this anyway. I have also added another citation to the paragraph, . —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, "post-posting support". Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted, the missing citations that were the basis of the two opposes have been resolved - Dumelow (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan Super League

 * Weak oppose this is a reasonable article and it's a topic of massive interest to our Pakistani readers for sure. I think if Lahore had won it, this would be a no-brainer, commentators were comparing their prospective victory to the 5000-1 Leicester City Premier League win.  But it didn't happen.  And we have a lot of cricket on ITN.  If I could be convinced this was properly in the news then I'd be tempted to move to support.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Good Luck! 111.88.90.252 (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, I'm not one hundred percent knowledgeable on how notability for sporting events is determined for WP:ITN. However, if we go by the numbers, this tournament would be right up there amongst the highly viewed sporting leagues in Asia.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, This is most viewed sports event in Pakistan, which is also viewed across the world.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The league has enormous viewership among cricketing nations and if it is a notability criteria then it definitely deserve to be at WP:ITN. USaamo (t@lk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article needs your attention and is ready to be posted. There seems to be a consensus here, so please post it before this gets stale. Depressed Desi (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment there are no sources, unless I missed something, in the "route to the final" section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The section has been expanded and referenced now. But IPL lovers are now here to oppose it. Depressed Desi (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose regional sporting event. There are already three cricket tournaments on ITNR --LaserLegs (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Firstly marking your own nominations as ""Ready" is COI, please don't do that. Secondly, this is not an WP:ITNSPORTS cricket item (for it which would need to be the top league in its format which this isn't). I am not seeing any valid votes regarding this except "views", the last noms which hinged on the same votes were closed for the same reasons (1, 2). Gotitbro (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support One of the popular league. Ainty Painty (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is well-written and updated, and the event is quite significant in garnering coverage outside of Pakistan.Bless sins (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Solow

 * Support sufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - After review, ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anjum Singh

 * Support Well sourced, small article. KittenKlub (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no way a fair use image can be used, she's literally only been dead days. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I went by what was done at Ben Cross back when the article was worked on here. But, that said, removing the image should be easy. Let me know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be there. It does not demonstrate that adequate and suitable effort has been put into finding a free alternative.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , sounds good. Image has been removed. Ktin (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Support - agree with TRM. Fair use only applies if there's no prospect of finding a free alternative. But for someone who only died a few days ago, it could easily be possible to track down free alternatives with a bit of work. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Image has been removed. Couldn't find free alternatives, hence, went by the fair use discussion here. Ktin (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. To be honest, it might be better to try to get a definitive answer from experts on the project pages as to what's acceptable from this point of view, balancing the fact that she's still subject to WP:BLP, versus ease of obtaining images. I do find the whole fair-use guideline a bit confusing generally, because it's very unclear what it means to be able to source an alternative image. I guess the assumption is that you can always go to one of her events and take a snap of her, and I guess that's not possible now she's passed away. But there are other ways to get images. One approach would be to find every single image of her online, and approach each of the photographers to see if they'd agree to release the rights under Creative Commons licence. That might well yield fruit, but obviously could apply to any subject, dead or alive. Anyway, now that the image is no longer there, happy to support. Quality seems to be good enough. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk)
 * Yes, exactly that, I've done that before successfully. Most people are prominent enough for there to be free photos available, you just have to do the work to find it before declaring fair use is the only alternative.  As for Cross, I don't see any discussion saying the fair use image was just fine.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, I do see your point. Yes, I did a good search prior to the fair use route. If someone has some cycles to help search, that would be much appreciated.
 * Re: Cross, here's the link to the discussion. Might have to click expand on the collapsed green box to see the comments. With that said, I have removed the image as well, in parallel. Ktin (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a fair-use picture, support. As far as I know, images are not required for article to be on ITN...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now for RD JW 1961   Talk  14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support FYI,, images are not mandatory nor necessary for something to pass ITN. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, I know that, as after 14 years and a quarter of a million edits, I have picked up a few things. Cheers for your advice.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Peru interim president

 * Oppose horrible target article, and shouldn't it just be "as interim" rather than "as an interim"? He's the only one, right?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely, my bad. Brandmeistertalk  22:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Is he interim president even if he took office? ArionEstar (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Al Jazeera he will be interim until national elections are called for April (barring his own resignation or similar extraordinary event). Brandmeistertalk  08:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient article quality to be a bolded blurb link. Otherwise qualifies per WP:ITNR's "Changes to the head of government"; however, we should reconsider if this office continues to be a revolving door.—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Confusing article. Lead says he's "the current President of Peru since 17 November 2020," not the 'interim president' (and the sentence is poorly constructed). Article also says he "he is slated to become the President of Peru by the line of succession." Unclear and poorly written. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Francisco Sagasti will need, at very least, significant further sourcing and a trimming of the authography section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should be posting anymore "interim" Peru updates until the situation and presidency itself finalizes. Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shawkat Ali (politician)

 * Support All looks well to me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Source 1 might be considered an autobiography (and thus a primary source), because Ali was in charge of the organization that published it. It is also quite short given the breadth of material it supports in the article. Otherwise a good BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support brief but hey, probably as good as it's going to get for the moment. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Campbell Forsyth

 * Support Neat little article, I can't check the citebook references but everything else seems fine for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all referenced. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment been good to go for 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Iota

 * oppose no matter how much damage or how many deaths this storm causes as tropical cyclones and weather events are all mundane/routine events and shouldn't have any coverage in ITN ever. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a bit full tilt. Nobody is saying what you've just said. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that either.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly the opinion is we have way too many TCs being nommed and none of the recent ones are notable so we shouldn't nominate any more for some time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominating more cyclones is plausible, provided it is a catastrophic one (more so than Iota).--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That means we should only nominate one or two a year or sometimes only one every few years. Nothing since Cyclone Idai would be notable enough based on your criteria. We might as well not even bother nominating those ones either. So storms like Iota and Eta have absolutely zero notability for ITN, yes? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 18:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amphan, Laura, Eta, Harold, Goni, in my opinion would suffice ITN for 2020.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a "time limit" or "allowance" thing, it's a "can you find something that's more than just the mundane: "hurricane X hits country Y and kills Z" which happens literally dozens of times per year. And that's just the Atlantic hurricane season.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for landfall, following past history of posting tropical cyclones here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still wait, communications to many rural areas have been cut and the true scope of the disaster is still unclear. The available reports aren't pretty though and the death toll could easily spike once aid workers reach presently isolated areas. FWIW communications with Providencia, one of the earliest areas to be affected, are still mostly down. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Existing practice is to wait until effects are felt by people on land, such as property destruction and deaths. This is likely to cause huge amounts of both, but we generally wait until after it has done so; so that our blurb can reflect such impacts.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * support first cat 5 in over a year. Cat 5's are really rare so we should add it. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We plan on it. We're just waiting for landfall.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait I was actually just about to nominate it, but looks like I was beaten to the punch. (cough, dang you . LOL!) I'm in support of waiting despite what I said though.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! I have a knack at beating others on ITN for nominating TC articles! :P ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait For full impact to appear, also the first blurb is better than the alts. Gotitbro (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it makes landfall, and perhaps mention the coincidence of two major hurricane striking the same part of Central America in two weeks. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose thankfully highly limited loss of life. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * full impact reports will roll in in a few hours-days. We won't know anything yet. It made landfall, like 12 hours ago. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah nowhere near as strong. Oppose stands. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure what you mean by "nowhere near as strong". You do realize that hurricanes weaken after making landfall and when they move over land, right? It peaked as a Cat 5 with 160mph (260kph) winds; yes, it did weaken slightly (5mph/10kph difference) to a Cat 4 with 155mph (250kph) winds and made landfall at that strength. It is now much weaker because it has been over land for several hours. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How many deaths? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you do realize that it takes time to determine the death toll after a natural disaster like a hurricane, right? Hence, all of the "wait" !votes. Your oppose !vote was hastily made before the hurricane even made landfall and then you sustained your oppose !vote while the disaster was still occurring. Any reasonable observer would wait (as many have here) until the hurricane is over and they count the dead before making any deterministic statements like you have about the death toll. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What utter claptrap. If you're accusing me of a premature "oppose" then why aren't you accusing the OP of a premature nomination?  Honestly, utterly ridiculous.  Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, oppose (ARGH, you CAN'T DO THAT), wait, wait.... Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP did make a premature nomination. It doesn't change the fact that you made a premature oppose !vote though. Do you have any better arguments to make other than "he did it too!" 192.197.178.2 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my original argument stands. Currently not newsworthy, so I oppose this nomination.  What's your problem hounding me?  Why not just log-in? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's so impactful that no news items on Google appear to have been updated for 10 hours. I mean, WOW. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support At least 8 deaths, and count is rising fast. Gex4pls (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment landfall happened. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support with the impact of Eta only two weeks earlier. I don't think the currently reported low death toll is of too much concern, since it will probably be some time before casualties are known. I added another possible blurb. Feel free to tweak it. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Since it now has made landfall, we should wait until we have more information. As of yet, the news has been slow to come in on impact of Iota. However, there could be significant flooding which reports may be delayed depending on the remoteness of the areas affected. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So maybe close this until there's a newsworthy item? This is, frankly, stupid to have a load of people voting "wait", we could have done that with Brexit.  Don't use ITNC as a weather-related scratchpad.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you,, that ITN/C has become a bit too tropical cyclone centric (I've contributed to this a bit myself), but that doesn't mean we can't post tropical cyclones. In particular, Iota is shaping up to be a bad one. Gex4pls (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Landfall happened, now up to 7 deaths and more than 20 missing. TRM, please reconsider. A catastrophic disaster is unfolding. I know you dislike hurricane nominations, as you opposed a 1-billion dollar 15-death nasty hurricane. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 02:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose You'll have a hard time convincing me in a post-COVID world that 7 deaths is a "catastrophic disaster unfolding". WaltCip- (talk)  03:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support re-opened now the death toll stands at 14. We posted Goni killed 11 and Molave killed 12 so it seems the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS have been satisfied. Also 2020 is a record season for Atlantic hurricanes. Updated blurb with new numbers. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS pegs the minimum at 17 for hurricanes (in Bangladesh, admittedly).--WaltCip- (talk)  13:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that the listed above all caused many deaths. The thing about 50 deaths is a bit much, I'm fine with 30. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - it seems like the death toll has sadly reached the critical point at which it's more than just a routine event. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hurricane news is regionally parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It really is, and don't people love all those records "lowest pressure in an Atlantic Hurricane on a Tuesday in November (morning only)" etc etc... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless you're going the Isaias way, the death toll is now up to 14, with 15 missing.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So let's get it straight, this is the fifth-deadliest Atlantic hurricane this year?? And like the 15th deadliest in the last four years??  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The good thing is that Nicaragua and the vicinity has learned greatly from past failures with Hurricane Eta. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well of course, these events are so routine that lessons have to have been learnt. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So we shouldn't post any or almost all cyclone impacts? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should do what I said below. Post those events which are not routine.  This is patently routine, it's fifth in the list of deaths from Atlantic hurricanes this year alone!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, let's say a hurricane hits the United States in late November. 40 people die, and says it's routine. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can say that, but don't ever put words in my mouth pal. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Routining so much it has happened 4 times in less than a month (Molave, Goni, Vamco, Eta, what else?)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No no no, it's got to be contextual. If we had 24 hurricanes all of which killed 30+ people in a year, we wouldn't post them all.  We should be looking for the non-routine events, that could be wind speeds, or $ damage or # deaths, but this is fifth in the list for this year, 15th for the past four years, it's utterly mundane. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More things in the world kill more people than these storms, like COVID. Report them, not cyclones. 30 is way too small. I could increase my threshold to 100 deaths, 50 is too small.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN only has four spots to put in any news in at a time. If there are 4 or more cyclones within a week that cause deaths, ITN has a huge problem.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Typhoon news is regionally parochial   --LaserLegs (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is getting like the Space-X posting. These things happen en mass in certain areas of the world many many times per year.  Literally nothing is remarkable about almost any of them.  We should really focus on those events which are truly newsworthy from an encyclopedic perspective, not just utterly mundane and routine occurrences, of which this is just a perfect example. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same nations (Philippines and Vietnam) getting the headlines three times in less than a fortnight. Fishy much?--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will support when death toll reaches 50. Right now I am still inclined to oppose. Noting this will be two news reports reporting the same group of nations in as many weeks (Eta). Post-comment: Actually, this part of world is impoverished and vulnerable: I will only support after 100 deaths.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Communications are down right now which is making this storm's death toll remain lower than what it will end up at. 30 more missing after a landslide. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So nominate it when the impact is well known, not when it's simply "just another Atlantic hurricane". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we really need some kind of guidelines for what tropical cyclones are posted to ITN, as these discussions are getting out of hand. Gex4pls (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – In local print journalism of yore, the typical weather story went, "A major storm roared through (city or area name) yesterday, felling trees, downing power lines, flooding streets and disrupting traffic." If you don't live there, it's of near-zero interest unless it affects someone you know. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: For some reason, big snowstorms were always more interesting. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much the same things happen in today's cyclones as it was eons ago, although with more people and higher technology comes an increase in damage bills and perhaps decrease death tolls due to improved forecasting.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Death toll is now up to 21, with 44 missing. Though TRM and CD will probably not change their opinions, I'm just letting them know. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, that is in no way remarkable, in no sense at all does it set it aside from the three other deadlier Atlantic hurricanes so far this season.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, It's now the third most deadliest, after Laura and Eta. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know when it becomes notable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, much deadlier than two of the pacific Typhoons we posted last month, one with four supports in less than a day. If anyone is unclear: Central America is not the United States of America so you don't need to "fight systemic bias" here --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had honestly thought Nicaragua was located in Kansas, so thank you for clearing up the confusion.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I closed this about 10 minutes ago due to arguing here but it was reopened. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - We do have some people passionate about natural disasters here, that much is obvious. The passion is appreciated as pertains to updating the articles and making sure they are of quality suitable for the main page. However, ITN looks at overall newsworthiness and encyclopedic value, not just at how much damage a storm does in the moment. We're looking at the big picture.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By that, all those sports records will not get posted. I don't mind if they don't - who cares if a guy beats the record for a 5000 m race by one second? ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is due to too many ITNs about hurricanes and typhoons in the past two to three weeks plus this hurricane affecting the same area as another hurricane only two weeks ago that got featured on ITN, that causes me not willing to see another ITN about another hurricane. Current death toll is still not high enough to change my stance.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As many people who follow track-and-field would explain, the significance is in measuring the maximum of human physical achievement throughout history. Indeed, beating the existing record by a second would be considered of earth-shattering significance in that field.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How many sports records have been on ITN in the past two to three weeks? I'll bet it is much less than the number of cyclone ITNs.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * None, but there was a bunch before September or October. Anyway, we're getting off-topic. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This conversation doesn't appear to be going anywhere, I say we just wait for the death toll to plateau or pass 50, then discuss further. Gex4pls (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I support closing the nomination. Reopen only when the death toll skyrockets.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? We've shown two recently posted typhoons which were speedy posted with lower death tolls. What's the reason to not post this one? Were those mistakes? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they were unless something extraordinary happened in each case, they were routine weather patterns and barely notable, let alone suitable for the main page of a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then. We should do better next season. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure which typhoons you are referring to. I remembered only discussing one typhoon. The others I didn't.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goni and Molave --LaserLegs (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goni, I supported as notable (one of the strongest). Molave, I did not discuss when the nomination was open. If Molave occurred today I would oppose.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Iota is the only cat 5 of a record atlantic season --LaserLegs (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG, groannnnnnn. "Iota is the only cat 5 of a record atlantic season" is fansite material.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN's blurb for Molave was later updated to state it caused 50 deaths at the time it rolled off. It ultimately caused 71 deaths. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes in this case it would have been better to nominate Molave at the moment it was known the typhoon killed 50...or 71.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true... but sometimes once everyone accounts the casualties (or some of it until it reaches the WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS of 50), it's no longer In the News. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Counting deaths can take days, even weeks after the event actually occurred so no surprise there. Then there is the government making their own funny decisions on what info to publicly release, and there are corrupted governments that do even worse. By the way, Molave and Goni were on ITN at the same time at one point, and I believe it would be preferable to have two typhoons combined on one ITN headline.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On your first point, again that's true. If we'd wait to hit for the WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS of 50, some blurbs would not have made it because people who would've argued "wait until we reach the WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS of 50" would then argue that it is stale once it reached the WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS of 50... or they'd probably hike the WP:ITNMINIMUMDEATHS to 100. On your second point, we don't do that, just as the same way we don't combine two routine general elections in two separate countries. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Will there be a quiz on this 26,000-word topic? – Sca (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep it can take time before the true terror of a typhoon is known. On 2nd point, I think ITN should do that. News programs have done that before by reporting the impact of simultaneous cyclones in separate countries, even continents.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read Typhoon and report back to us. – Sca (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Goni groaaaaaaaaaaaaan it's "one of the stronnnnnnngessssttttttttttt" burp. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like my drinking days.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets just close this stagnating conversation until there's a significant development. Gex4pls (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually it has been quite funny and hilarious reading and chatting during this discussion. Interesting book on a typhoon Sca...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * per many of you guys wanting to close this drunken discussion, I'm closing and will re-nominate once it hits a number of deaths you guys would want to see. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walid Muallem

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine and interesting career. Gotitbro (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There is one dead link/404 error (ref 7 as of now) that I can't get IABOT to fix, would be better if that could be replaced JW 1961   Talk  17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joseywales1961, I found an archived version and fixed it- Dumelow (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Would have been good to go from the bottom of the stack to give other articles a chance. Ktin (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Moldovan presidential election

 * Oppose a section tagged for expansion, the results only quote exit polls. And WP:LINKROT much? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support in principle. Empty section. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Rambling. Maintenance tags and refs required and too many ELs/non-formatted refs. Gotitbro (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs expansion, but would've supported it otherwise. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CommentThe non-formatted refs and expansion tags have been resolved. Can someone confirm whether this is sufficient? Joofjoof (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is thorough and well-referenced, and gives a good synopsis of the candidates and issues of the election. Prose Results. I did not check against LINKROT, but if they have been addressed then this is as good an election article as I would expect.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks complete, although I'm not a fan of the glitzy campaign signs. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlos Amadeu

 * Support sufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced little article JW 1961   Talk  17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead should be a bit more than one sentence only saying he played and managed football.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead expanded. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Taylor (basketball)

 * Weak support it's brief but what's there is okay. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Basics there.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been good to go for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) SpaceX Crew-1

 * Comment What is "First operational manned flight" supposed to mean? First for SpaceX or is it some technical lingo? If its only unique for being a SpaceX manned flight, why so? Needs to be clarified in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - as I understand it, SpaceX made a test flight earlier this year, which just had dudes orbiting around for a while before coming down again, while this new one is a proper "mission", which will dock with the ISS. It would certainly need clarifying what that means, and I suspect just going with the shorter ALT blurb is better. The article's "Mission" section is currently lacking some references, so that will need fixing up before going live, and I suspect also a bit of prose on how the launch itself went, once that's known, would be good. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I was coming in to nominate this myself. Agree that this is ITNR. Re: above comment from -- almost that, the only edit is that the previous launch also docked at the ISS carrying astronauts Bob and Doug. The difference is that the previous launch was a test launch/mission and hence designated as 'demo'. The article should be updated with launch details. Would also recommend that the blurb be edited to mention the ISS as well.Ktin (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cmnt it just launched. Previous one was a demo/test flight.  This is a contracted, commercial flight.  Alt has the non-verbose version. 205.175.106.183 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment takeoff time seems to be unreferenced, and I'd wait for this to dock successfully if it was down to me, but ITNR probably just refers to the launch, so no complaints if, once the time is sourced, this being posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Per TRM, but wait until docking. A milestone? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really don't understand why this one is notable. In the first mission, they launched and recovered 2 people from space, docked with ISS, did four EVAs, the mission wasn't exactly short like the 1st missions of US, Russia, and China "spent over 100 hours completing science experiments, while traveling 27 million miles over their 1024 orbits of the Earth". Hats-off to space-x for basically checking most of the boxes in one go the first time (which would have taken governments years...), for which we duly posted as ITN, but this time there is nothing noteworthy incremental that would justify second posting. Albertaont (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R says that "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" qualifies automatically for ITN, so per usual convention we shouldn't be opposing this on notability grounds. If you think that condition for a recurring item is invalid, then you'll have to suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:In the news and gain consensus for that. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The rule is the rule, I guess the change will have to be suggested there. Albertaont (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I would've thought that routine ISS launches wouldn't qualify for ITN, but I guess ITN/R says otherwise. We should discuss that at some point. Juxlos (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This does need to be revisited on ITNR. I thought this was unique being the first commercial mission et all, but that is not the case and that mission had been posted earlier sometime ago on ITN. Don't see the uniqueness of this at all. Gotitbro (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've argued for years that routine ISS crew rotation flights should not be ITNR. No-one has come up with a counter-argument, but the discussion always peters out without any changes the the listing. See the archives of WT:ITNR. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt1. The other blurb was confusingly worded.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ray Clemence

 * Oppose Orange tags and a lot of unreferenced statements including whole sections. Gotitbro (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly the referencing issues still remain.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Masters Tournament

 * Comment. Please can we update the prose summaries (text) for round 4 and one round of sourcing for the tables (this should be simple). Once that is done, this article is good for homepage. Congrats to Dustin Johnson! Ktin (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -  First player to get to twenty under at the Masters. Buried the competition by five strokes and didn't even know it til the end. Good night nurse! CoatCheck (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the "Field" section has gone back to the long and unwieldy format that we discussed earlier in the year as being non-optimal. Please see 2020 PGA Championship for an example of how this should look, after lots of good work was put into that one in getting it into shape. Also, quite a few cites needed throughout the article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . - please can one of you have the recommendation from Amakuru looked at. This one looks real close to making it to the homepage. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll try to fix it to that, but a lot of the other Masters will need this treatment as well. Cites anyone can add. Most of the proboly needed info could be found on the Masters official website. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Manuel Merino

 * Comment Probably not ITN/R with no replacement yet, and the blurbs need work to be less tabloid-y. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update the existing blurb for the impeachment, which is still on the main page. See In_the_news/Candidates.  If the situation is chaotic and disputed then move it to ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Ongoing. It seems like this renders the previous blurb outdated, and we can expect further updates, so an ongoing seems best, until such time as a stable new leaders is promulgated. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support update to existing blurb. Does not support moving to Ongoing before it would have fallen off by age. No comment on whether it should go to Ongoing when it does. -- KTC (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The existing blurb hasn't "fallen off by age", it's fallen off because it's no longer true. The whole point of Ongoing is to cover stories that evolve constantly over a period of time, as this one now appears to be doing. We can't just keep bumping it back to the top of ITN every time there's a development. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and merge this blurb with existing blurb for now until successor has been confirmed, which this blurb can be revised. I don't have a problem to posted it as ongoing as long as information remains up to date and available. 36.68.195.164 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing This is what that section is for, a lot of uncertainty and multiple updates. Gotitbro (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing Wow, a lot of things are happening in Peru right now. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support either altblurb2 or ongoing. If we're going with a blurb update, I think it should mention the impeachment, the protests, and this resignation. Ongoing is good because the situation is so volatile. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb II Meets WP:ITNR's "Changes to the head of government". Remove old blurb about Vizcarra's removal if it's still on the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, blurb II. I think it makes indeed sense to update the blurb instead of ongoing. --Tone 08:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 MotoGP World Championship

 * Support - Added a photo per ' request. Article looks well-sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the image will have to wait. Thanks for catching remaining CN's, and  for resolving them. Joofjoof (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - All cn tags are now resolved. Feel free to raise any issues. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have we posted past MotoGP World Championships? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Probably not, but from my point of view, the article is good to go. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't follow motorbike racing but I've seen this title win reported on the news a fair bit. It's a world championship, good for the person who won. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Lewis Hamilton and 2020 Formula One World Championship

 * Support.5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-driven. Respect. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose will consider support breaking a relatively long-term record, but not equalling it. 2021 it is. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - this is ITNR, which I didn't realise when nominating. Any objections on quality? Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hamilton article is good, Mercedes less so, plenty of the early stuff unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed the entry to ITNR, and added an alternative blurb. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "Lewis Hamilton crowns the 2020 Formula One World Championship" doesn't make grammatical sense. He has been crowned champion, he hasn't crowned the championship. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Blurb expanded per ITNR. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. Grimes2 (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't the blurb anchor be the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix since this is an ITNR nom? Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:ITN/R - Driver's and Constructor's Champions are the ITN/R items. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the event is usually what is bolded. Wouldn't it be 2020 Formula One World Championship?—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I don't know, but would not object to a blurb that bolds Hamilton and the 2020 F1 WC. Please feel free to propose an altblurb. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt3. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added a succinct blurb, linking to the actual championsihp article, as would be expected for the ITN/R entry. I've also mentioned that the win is record-equalling, which could be removed from the blurb if people feel strongly that that's not relevant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's usually just the winners. For example the blurb for the 2020 NBA Finals didn't mention that the Lakers tied the league record for most championships.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is a significant achievement, and probably newsworthy in its own right, independent of the ITN/R rules. Although perhaps, as TRM says, we could hold off for next year if and when he breaks the record. I weakly support inclusion I guess. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru's Alt III with Hamilton also bolded is acceptable. To be clear, Hamilton's achievement is ITN-worthy in its own right, regardless of any ITNR considerations. The two can be combined. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean my ALT II? I have tweaked that so that Hamilton is also bolded, since he is seemingly the subject of the record equalling feat. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alt II is acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt3 205.175.106.183 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: no matter which blurb is posted, can we not post a photo with it? That Lewis Hamilton photo has been on the front page so many times. As an alternative, a picture of Lewis' car might be better (File:Lewis Hamilton 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix - race day.jpg).  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - no real opposition to posting. Suggest ALT II is used. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 only. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT 3. There is consensus for the short version of the blurb, which also conforms with ITN/R. Currently I don't see a consensus for including info about the record-equalling title, but discussion can continue and the hook expanded if the discussion develops. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear on this, I've posted the minimal version here since consensus for that is clear. But per my above comment I would support alt 2 if there's consensus for that - just that at present I don't think there is... Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Tigray conflict

 * Comment I edit-conflicted with you nominating this. I am not sure of my position on it yet but for the record this is the comment I had on my nomination: "with the recent Mai Kadra massacre and Asmara rocket attacks as well as accusations of war crimes from the UN, I think it is worth us discussing the merits of adding the conflict to ongoing" - Dumelow (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. The most prominent armed conflict in news as of now (after the Nagorno Karabakh war ended). Gotitbro (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Includes bombing of Eritrean capital Asmara. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ethiopian civil war 2 question mark? CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This won't go away anytime soon. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - certainly seems noteworthy enough, per above. But the structure and format of this article don'tlook great at the moment unfortunately. The actual conflict itself is reduced to a "timeline", which isn't really a substitute for proper prose summarising the event as a whole. And the lead is only two lines long at present. There's a "article undergoing restructuring" template at the top, so perhaps this is already being resolved, and in any case we should wait until said restructure is complete. As a final point, since we haven't posted this before, shouldn't it start with a proper blurb rather than going straight to Ongoing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
 * The timeline structure of the article is probably disqualifying at FAC, but not for the Main Page IMO; I also don't think that a blurb is required prior to posting to Ongoing. I would post this right now but for the Under construction template on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I was slightly surprised not to see this earlier. A major conflict with potentially massive implications in East Africa. The timeline format is currently fine for posting but I do agree that it might cease to be as the conflict develops and the list gets longer and longer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is simply not ready to go on the front page. Impact is also unclear. I read potentially massive implications. Ok. Maybe. Too early too tell. We are not a newsticker and so we can wait until the situation becomes clear. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:104A:9C3F:31A:8C74 (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Too early to claim that it has implications? Plenty of reliable sources have addressed this exact aspect (BBC, Reuters among others). It's true that we aren't a news ticker, but if we don't post the outbreaks of large-scale conflicts we really need to ask why we have an ITN section at all. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone please have a look at the orange tag that calls for introduction expansion, otherwise I think this is more or less ready for ongoing. --Tone 09:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * to ongoing; I have dealt with the lead problems. The latest update on this, however, is only two days younger than our oldest blurb, so perhaps that might be something to look out for and possibly discuss. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Soumitra Chatterjee
*Oppose For now. Mostly what Dumelow said. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, lots of work needed. None of the publications are cited, most of the awards are uncited, passages of main text uncited, grammar needs an overhaul ("He acted more than 210 films in his career till 2016", " In Teen Bhubaner Pare (1969), he again shared the screen with the Tanuja, and his flamboyant and peppy way of romance" etc.) - Dumelow (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose reference issues, tone issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done some cleanup for the the lead (yellow box), refs and the issues raised above (publications). Please see if there are further issues with tone, otherwise it looks ready for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as the nominator, thanks to the edits from and others. I did a round of copy edits, and I think it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

 * Weak Support top economic news this morning. The criticism section doesn't "need expansion". The article itself, lotta proseline. That table has no refs and doesn't really add anything it could go. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – important news, and the article seems to cover the key information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The terms of the agreement are completely absent. Also, if you want to say "negotiations took 9 years and 27 meetings" that's fine. We don't need a proseline list of dates and locations of those meetings.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GreatCaesarsGhost the terms of the agreement are not publicly available yet. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no idea where and how you got the idea that the terms are "absent" or "not publicly available", as both Japan and Australia has published the full text of RCEP agreement, even including annexes. Also (even if it really were absent) I cannot see any connection between "terms absent" and an objection for ITN - would you please clarify your reasoning for that? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure about this. While significant not really sure what will come of this, a lot of media hype was created earlier but that has probably dampened due to the pandemic. I'd say wait for sometime and if its still being given prominent coverage internationally we can consider it. Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose And now oppose, thanks for pointing this out, only an agreement for a pact no ratification as of yet. Gotitbro (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this requires ratification by the member countries which could take two years. It is important (scope like formation of EU), but not yet assured. --M asem (t) 14:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Concerning the case of TPP, non-ractificationess didn't pose a successful objection (and of course, TPP was in ITN for a second time when it's ractified). I wonder if there's any change in ITN certeria during this five years. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support Thanks for convincing me. Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Front page coverage in almost all asian pacific countries, and it is still getting decent coverage even in North America. Albertaont (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ratification will almost certainly come piecemeal considering there are 13 countries involved, and I don't see any clear indication to assume it would not pass in all countries. Otherwise, this is by some measure the biggest trade bloc in the world and it takes up considerable attention in international news - some headlines, but definitely top of the economy section at least. Juxlos (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This has already got plenty of global coverage. I'm intrigued by the suggestion that ratification is more important here than signing. Would we not have featured the United Nations Conference on International Organization simply because it was several months before Luxembourg ratified it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in itself historic, regardless if it is ratified or not. The scope of it is what is significant, and per Brigade Piron and per 173.68.165.114, it is deserving of ITN. Please reconsider, and  based off 173.68.165.114's comment and others. Thanks. 108.46.219.194 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Good reasoning. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 01:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My objection was and remains the lack of any detail of what is in the agreement. As noted in the ABC article above "It will take time to fully assess exact details of the agreement encompassing tariff schedules and rules for all 15 countries involved — the tariffs schedule just for Japan is 1,334 pages long. It is not expected to go as far as the European Union in integrating member economies but does build on existing free trade arrangements." We need something like this in the article, preferably from a few different sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! May I understand the objection this way: it is not the lack of detail but the lack of understanding of the detail. Since the agreement is too detailed and technical, it is almost impossible to overall catch the effect of those numbers, and the most practical way for most international analysts who do not have enough time and resources to input and simulating all these data into a supercomputer is simply wait and see what will happen. Correct me if my understanding of your objection is incorrect. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw I added a geographic based alt blurb, for I think many non-Asians may not be familiar with what ASEAN is. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it might or might not be significant, but the article for sure is not even close to being ready for the front page. A tiny section on the actual provisions of the agreement, one sentence on the ex-ante impact, a bullet point list of negotiation dates, but almost nothing about what was negotiated. And nothing on the background, rationale, political economy. And btw, I also agree that it should be posted one it comes into effect, AFTER ratification. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:104A:9C3F:31A:8C74 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Historic agreement. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Until this is ratified, it is really just speculative. Particularly as, per GCG, we do'nt know the details to judge how significant it is. We should post as and when it is ratified and/or details show its importance. Also, per IP above, the quality needs improving before we would consider posting it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * THe IP stated the entire agreement has been released. It'll take time to go through it, but an agreement this big and important should have a lot of journalists reading and commenting on it quickly. That said, there's already a good argument for waiting, and waiting should address the substance problems.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree with that. Once the detail that you mention is included, and assuming it doesn't turn out to be just some minor deal to reduce tariffs on paperclips or something, it could be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just cite one of the permutations as an example, from a Nikkei source. Japan's trade with China ($350 billion) will see tariffs removed on c. 90% of products. Similar is true with South Korea-Japan ($100 billion or so). It basically is a free trade deal, minus a number of select commodities. Juxlos (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support why not? It's a huge deal encompassing 30% of the world's economy. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If this isn't significant enough I don't know what economic news is. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The short Contents section convinces me that this is not actually impactful. It's an incomplete tariff reduction. Confusingly, it is supposed to reduce red tape, but at the same time introduce rules of origin regulations. The section flatly says that the most salient subjects are not addressed in the agreement, and that it is not as comprehensive as previous treaties. It is not topline economic news in my corner of the world.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Adolfo Bolea

 * Comment Just added 1 cn in the "Club career" section re hat-trick and scoring records, would support (ping me) when that is addressed JW 1961   Talk  17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joseywales1961, can't believe I missed that one. Now reffed - Dumelow (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for the update, looks ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Piatra Neamț hospital fire

 * Weak oppose though a tragic event, the death toll is still rather low compared to other fires/disasters we’ve posted. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I presume that the international coverage draws more from the COVID connection that the deathtoll, as Destroyeraa says, or fact of it being in a hospital. Certainly very tragic, but not globally significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support : worldwide news, extensive coverage.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would have been ideal to post closer to the day but it didn't and the news has become old. No longer a support.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Des O'Connor

 * Comment. Sourcing is frankly only one of the big issues with this article. There are a few sections which are not even in prose! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per Brigade Piron there are many citation needed tags and the Career section in bullet points needs to be addressed JW 1961   Talk  21:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This has now been reported in several news sources as confirmed by a quick Google search. Furthermore, O'Connor is very well-known at least in the UK.  Agreed that there are several CNs in the Career section of his article, but is this criterion for inclusion as an RD? — Smjg (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstand the criteria for including an article in RD - please read WP:ITNRD. The key thing is article quality, not importance, and this article is currently one of the worst nominated here for quite a while! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was hoping I could blitz through it and source everything, but I haven't had time. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Gros-Louis

 * Support Good enough. Ҥ (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks a clean C-class biography. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Supernaw

 * Support - Good. I can see any missing refs.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ҥ (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now unfortunately, as ever, it's the discography that falls down on referencing. It's not clear where I look to verify the label and "CD, Cassette" etc for the albums, and some refs e.g. the US County one in the chart performance seem to be dead. All else looks good though. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Updated dead links, refs added and removed singles and videos that there were no RS to verify (re the labels and formats are under releases on allmusic sometimes it's a hover button)  JW 1961   Talk  13:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's still an orange box at Doug Supernaw re: citations needed.   It needs to be resolved (or removed if no longer relevant).—Bagumba (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * tag removed; discography refs resolved. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment thanks for the updates, but there's still a few things that are unclear to me. Once these are resolved, I think it'll be good to go:
 * The link for the US Country album chart positions, just points to https://www.billboard.com/charts/country-albums, which defaults to the chart as of this week. How am I supposed to translate that page into verifying the peak position for Supernaw's albums? It looks like a Paywall site, so I'm not sure what lies beneath, but it seems like explicit links verifying the peak positions would be better.
 * Ditto for US country songs chart.
 * The studio albums don't seem to have AllMusic links, so I can't verify the release date, label and formats for those.
 * The cite links in the "Music videos" table seem to be broken - they all just redirect to the generic page https://www.youtube.com/user/cmtvideo/. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * re point #3, I've added an AllMusic ref to his album discography. For points #1 and 2, you could use the "Date Search" dropdown function that comes after "The week of …".  That part is not behind a paywall.  And explicit links to peak position charts were not required for the ITN noms of Jerry Jeff Walker and Johnny Bush just over a month ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Having the reader query up to 52 weeks to find a given rank for one song is not exactly verifiable. For the US tracks, Reno (Doug Supernaw song) used https://www.billboard.com/music/Doug-Supernaw/chart-history/CSI, which had all of his ranked songs in one place.  Not sure if that single-link equivalent exists for the Canadian charts.  Otherwise, those individual song articles seem to have some relevant citations for the respective song.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the link you provided is already included in the article, so I've expanded its use into the Singles table. As for the Canadian charts, the ref from the Canadian government (Library and Archives Canada database) is the only reliable source that I know of.  I can't say that about the other external links in the RPM article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * just added archive URLs to the "Music videos" table (addressing point #4).  I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost there! Still wondering how we verify those US Country chart numbers though... the 27, 48 and 42? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the other Billboard charts for Supernaw, go to that link you already used at https://www.billboard.com/music/Doug-Supernaw/chart-history/CSI. Where it says "Hot Country Song" up top is a drop-down menu, where you can get to other charts specifically for him. For example, selecting "Top Country Albums"  will bring you to https://www.billboard.com/music/doug-supernaw/chart-history/CLP, which you can use for the "US Country" column for the studio albums.  All that's left is Canada.  Perhaps others might say the article is mostly sourced and be OK?  Other options are to move it to the talk page. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought ref 20 verifies the Canadian charts? That same government source for RPM was deemed acceptable in the RD nom Johnny Bush just over a month ago, because the URL was targeted for that specific artist (as opposed to linking to the general database for the reader to search).  Surely it should be acceptable in this case, don't you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I dion't see that it was only for this artists. I'm probably not making a formal bolded !vote here, so people can interpret my comments how they want.  It seems like all the sources are probably there among those 64 links. It's just a matter of clicking through each one until you get the one that's relevant.  Correct? —Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks generally good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thanks for the updates to referencing. Seems like we more or less got there in the end, hence I'm withdrawing my previous objections, albeit that the links and finding specific facts may be a bit convoluted in places, per Bagumba above! Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Hasan Muratović

 * Oppose most of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above it's largely unreferenced JW 1961   Talk  23:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many referencing issues. Gotitbro (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Armen Dzhigarkhanyan

 * Oppose "selected" filmography (whatever that means) is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and yes, filmography has wikilinks to corresponding articles, all of which have references --Andrei (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't true, nor is it helpful for RD - article referencing should standalone. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of those films don’t have articles. Stephen 11:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support while I don't like the idea of "selected filmographies" either, I think the article is suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  23:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Filmography (including voice credits) needs to be sourced on the page itself. Wikilinks to other wiki articles should not be considered substitutes for sources. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire Sean Connery filmography has only four sources. Yet, there were no problems with him. --Andrei (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That article wasn’t put on the main page. Stephen 05:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. The filmography needs sourcing before this goes up. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on (1) unreffed 'ography and (2) LISTCRIT. Point (2) can apparently be resolved with Inc-film per this recent example which we we posted.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Masatoshi Koshiba

 * Support. Edits and expansion done. Article is well referenced. Meets all hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Good to go. If someone wants to learn more about this topic you can start here. Ktin (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks ready for posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * pardon the intrusion. Please can I request one of you to help have a look at this one, since the carousel might move beyond at any point now. This is ready for homepage / RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Eta

 * Comment This has already been posted before, so why nominate again? KittenKlub (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the talk page: "A news item involving Hurricane Eta was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 November 2020." Hmm. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked through the ITN/C history and didn't see it, so if I missed it, I apologize. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow Oppose Storm is dead. We literally just posted ETA a few days ago. Not newsworthy anymore. Maybe Iota will be but...~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it in the template history -- where is the discussion for it? Honestly I can't find it. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was posted on November 6th. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Post closing comment turning out the archive for November 3 and 4 are missing which is why I didn't see this had been posted. A little more benefit of the doubt and a little less snark would have been nice. Y'all do how you feel though --LaserLegs (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No snark in there, just facts. If you don't like it, don't post old news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Western Saharan clashes

 * Oppose For now, no clarity on what the consequences are or will be. Also, the lead seems problematic with statements such as "internationally recognized as part of Morocco" which I don't see in the main linked articles. Gotitbro (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , fixed the lead issue. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No you haven't; you've replaced "internationally recognized" with "unrecognized" which is flat-out untrue. &#8209; Iridescent 14:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * War has been formally declared by one side. Need to keep a close eye on this situation, looks set to escalate. Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Premature. Scant detail in reports. Situation bears watching, though. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. This has been slightly overshadowed by the civil war in Ethiopia but may well become ITN-worthy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Meurig Thomas

 * Support Good nom. Gotitbro (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I can't see any missing refs. To me, it's ready to go.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RIP, top bloke, will be missed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Vamco

 * Comment I totally agree that in the last few weeks we've not posted   a literal record number of storms hitting the United States / Caribbean .... *shrugs* --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sadly this is normal for most storm impacts. Support since the toll is much higher now. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. Still assessing the damages, and with the overwhelmed rescue operations in the Cagayan Valley, it'll take some time to identify the true extent of the deaths. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 22:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The death toll of Vamco has risen to 42. How can a C5 kill 26 while a C2 kills more than 42 and a C1 kills 39? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyeraa (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * People saw that the C5 didn't kill them so they let their guard down on the next one. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wind speed does not necessarily translate to impact as heavy rains can also cause massive floods which kill more, much like Typhoon Ketsana, which killed 710 despite being a Cat. 2-equivalent. Taking in whatever I can from news right now (meaning this isn't official state information, yet it is a good estimation), Goni's impact was limited since its damages were mostly due to winds, and most of those to be affected were evacuated in time. Marikina, Cagayan, and Isabela evacuated their citizens in low-lying areas early, however, when the dams opened and all the excess water was pushed out into the Cagayan River and Pasig River, all areas which were close to bodies of water part of the spillway systems, including those far from low-lying areas, were quickly filled up, giving the state little time to react given the limited rescue teams and the extent of the affected areas. In short, they failed to prepare for the flooding caused by the dams, causing massive floods in affected areas. However, due to the lack of sources on the topic, I can't put that in the article yet. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 23:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support been a terrible month for tropical cyclones (and there's already another storm that's forecast to hit nicaragua as a c3+), and the Philippines seems to have really taken a beating, though I do think we may want to Wait until landfall in vietnam. Gex4pls (talk)
 * Support per nom. It's unfortunate that the Philippines has been hit by typhoons in quick succession. The damage from Typhoon Vamco is already too much to ignore and floods have broken records again. Some others might dismiss this as just another typhoon, but several major international media outlets have been doing extensive coverage of the aftermath of this typhoon. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now . The lead needs some expansion, at the very least it sholud provide a bit of detail about what happened in the Philippines and the death toll. After that, good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead. If that's all that's required, it's pretty much good to go then. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 13:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, Vamco's expected to make landfall in Vietnam as a typhoon (yes, yet another one) in the next 12 hours, which will likely lead to a burst of new info. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see it's just been posted. Blurb will likely need updating in the near future though. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - apologies, I posted it following 's helpful update to the lead, withdrawing my own objections, and this was before KN2731 comment above. But I forgot to mention it here. I think there was broad consensus that it was already notable enough for posting, and as usual it can be updated as the death toll and locations hit changes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update required as official sources raised the death count to 67 people. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 03:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Hays

 * Comment Good sourcing, but this article needs to be longer (at least start-class). Joofjoof (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – At 100 words, it's little more than a stub. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way too barebones a bio for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly this one is still too stubby JW 1961   Talk  20:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short, sadly. - Poydoo can talk and edit 20:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Sutcliffe

 * Support Was about to nominate this myself. Seems in a good condition to me.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks generally ok, "interesting" nom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Belizean general election

 * Comment Generally okayish but need to expand the lead and the reactions sections can do with some trimming (flags et all). Gotitbro (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now please provide updates of the sort requested by Gotitbro, including a proper prose summary of the results in both the lead and the body. Then this will be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I have edited the lead and the results sections, and shortened the quotes in the reactions. Joofjoof (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems adequate now if not stale? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gernot Roll

 * Support - Good enough. No missing refs.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The filmography needs to be expanded (see the dewiki article), is too short for the works done and the awards received. The bio also needs more prose in relation to his work. Gotitbro (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro, please dont' tell me "see the dewiki article" when I said "MUCH longer in German". Can you please add from there? Because I have other projects with a deadline, - sad pun, sorry, I just can't pick when people die. When they die, I interrupt and do what I can, but no more. Anybody? Perhaps someone more familiar with film than I am? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was not clear from your statement what you meant. And my comment here was for everyone who sees the nom and wants to improve it not you (the nominator) specifically. I am not much familiar with German cinema (or sourcing it) so someone more attuned should take a go at it. Gotitbro (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Understand better, but fail to see what in "there could be more. The list of films is MUCH longer in German" could be unclear, - language edification always welcome. I'll go over my watchlist, do what I have to urgently, and THEN see if I can help, but I have found the clock of ITN ticking fast, and people not appearing because I nominated too late, so stopped waiting until the article is in shape. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added those films - a minority - that have an article in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - this looks good enough for me. RD doesn't require anything more than "Start" class for quality, as long as there are no major omissions or other concerns such as balance/neutrality. It's over the 1500 bytes of prose threshold, so it's not a stub, and I don't think there are massive details missing from his career, as we see for some subjects. The German article's filmography is far too long, so I don't see that as an objection either. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Amakuru, it's not a stub and is well sourced JW 1961   Talk  20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well sourced and the filmography is large enough. KittenKlub (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Prose coverage of career is essentially a prose version of a filmography; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly tell me what you expect on what sources? - I looked at the obits again: they basically say that he filmed a broad range of genres, from farce to high literature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also found "Gernot Roll denkt in großen Bildern, große Worte mag er nicht." - ... thinks in big pictures, does not like big words. - Bedtime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * last - small - word: meet the person --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Waking up: what I see is that if he was a director, all papers would be full of substantial obituaries, but now he was primarily "only" a cinematographer. We - Wikipedia - could do a little bit to fight that unfairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Filmography issues resolved. General consensus to post.—Bagumba (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Waqar Ahmed Seth

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- looks good, marked ready. Depressed Desi (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Albert Quixall

 * Support A bit short but looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've requested some sources. Probably just my football ignorance but there's also an apparent discrepancy between the text and infobox on the end of his career; the infobox claims he played subsequently for two minor teams. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Espresso Addict. I've sourced the 1954 oldest survivor fact (which was added by another editor), though in a somewhat roundabout way, and added a source that mentions his non-league spell at the end of his career - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I trawled through the list of 1954 players and they all do indeed seem to have predeceased Quixall. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Peruvian protests

 * Wait until the Peru impeachment blurb goes off, support in principle. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: is there a minimum length of time for an ongoing event? Joofjoof (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No minimum or maximum. Stephen 02:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "hundreds" gathering here and there is a non-event. We easily get that many red hats at a QAnon rally. When it's substantial, and "continually updated" then we can discuss. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this point, the protests seem relatively limited in scope. Willing to reconsider if further events develop.  Spencer T• C 04:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait to see if something really happens.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest add to blurb instead There were thousands protesting in Lima Thurs night. Perhaps add the protests to the blub as "Manuel Merino becomes President of Peru amid protests after Martín Vizcarra (pictured) is impeached and removed from office." The picture and bolding can be moved to the new president as well.—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support In terms of the size of the protest you're comparing a country of 330 million to a country of 33 million. And it does seem to be significant because the enormous pressure of the protests seem to be effecting the new government. Yesterday over half of the Presidential Cabinet resigned and I would not be surprised to see the de facto President finally break sometime in these next few days. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨

(Closed) RD: Asif Basra

 * Weak oppose. Clearly notable, but the article is more or less a list of roles he's been in at the moment. Would happily be pinged if/when it's expanded to have a bit more than that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing on Early/Personal life (some of which is in the infobox), career needs a lot of expansion, most of the filmography is unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added early life. English news coverage of him is rather scant. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove Polish protests from ongoing

 * Support No significant updates about the protests in the news or the article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal stale, poor quality article also should never have been posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal - Lack of updates on developments suggests a removal is correct. Jusdafax (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Spencer T• C 04:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Jerry Rawlings

 * Support Well sourced and of good length. Gex4pls (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Articles looks good. One of the most significant leaders in Ghana and in the African Union, should definitely be considered for a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD satisfactory article for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm opposed to a blurb like most death blurbs but we've posted many former heads of whatever so IMO Rawlings qualifies --LaserLegs (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Support Blurb. People who follow African history will know Rawlings as one of the towering figures when it comes to significance, who was president and dictator for many years, before ushering in democracy and eventually seeing his chosen successor defeated. Domestically, and probably regionally, he was a more important figure than George H. W. Bush, a four-year US president whom we blurbed without hesitation. But globally, US presidents will always trump Ghanaian presidents in the pecking order, so this probably doesn't tell us much. A closer comparison would be Daniel arap Moi, who fills a similar role in Kenya. He died earlier this year, and although I posted him initially, consensus was eventually for no blurb. So, in summary, my personal opinion is that we should blurb, but when considering precedent and comparison with other figures, it's most likely an RD only. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would've supported Arap as well, but that doesn't mean this should be overlooked. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Count me as a "support blurb" then. There's no doubt that he was a very prominent figure, and over a lengthy period of time, so let's go for it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. I don't think comparisons are particularly helpful and Wikipedia is not a common law country. We already have a generally agreed standard (itself not binding) at WP:ITNRD as "transformative world leaders in their field" and should work from this. Rawlings was unquestionably a "world leader" (Ghana, at the time, was certainly among the most politically significant state in post-independence Africa) and played a major role. I think a blurb could be more than justified. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Major player in Ghanaian and regional politics. Article quality is solid and fleshed out to the point that his importance is clear.  Spencer T• C 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we might be approaching consensus for a blurb here. Maybe someone can assess. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved from RD to blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull - He wasn't a world transformative figure and died of old age. Depressed Desi (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By what measure? Please see the discussion above. Gotitbro (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep blurb - Funny enough, I was just recently reading about Jerry Rawlings and doing some research into his dictatorship in the 1980s. He was a significant figure in Ghana, and went on to become a major player in the African continent. I believe he is notable enough for his own blurb. Kurtis (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rawlings was a huge figure at the time in Africa (particularly West Africa), and had a huge impact on politics in the region. - 109.249.185.63 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa

 * Weak support Thorough and referenced, but there is a gap in coverage in the 1980s and 1990s (one ref references that he organized resistance to Sani Abacha at this time, so the subject wasn't absent from politics over this time). As an aside, I thought there was some copyvio in the article, but it looks like based on time stamps that others have plagiarized from the Wikipedia article .  Spencer T• C 15:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay for an RD to me though the career section can be expanded on as pointed out by Spencer. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Titus Davis

 * Support Added NY Post source to nom. Was leaning oppose if there was no other RS coverage.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given he didn't do much in the NFL, would like to see more in the college career section. NFL section is fine as-is. Not enough to oppose, but would like to see some additional expansion before supporting.  Spencer T• C 16:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was a 4-time all-conference player in college, so there should be a bit more detail on his college career. Otherwise, the article is a mere series of pro transactions and the bulky box of WP:FANCRUFT measurements.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD or blurb: Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

 * Comment The article will need a lot of sourcing (basically all sections from Marriage and children onwards). Also it lacks prose for his 50 years in office as Prime Minister. I will support with blurb, if his article meets minimum quality requirements. KittenKlub (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I also wanted to nominate him. I support the reasons for a blurb, but for now the article doesn't meet the quality requirements. Once arranged, my vote will be one of Support. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , You can contribute to update my nomination and adding new source because it needs more informations. I believe i found only one source for this. 36.68.199.128 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the PM's Wikipedia page, your nomination is fine. I have a busy few weeks so I don't have much free time, so I'll try to do what I can when I have a little moment to update the biography. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, since a stand-alone article on his death and/or funeral could not be sustained. Also, not the King, and appointed, not elected. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on article quality - many references needed all overv the article. JW 1961   Talk  15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This hardly passes RD let alone a blurb. Most of it is unreferenced and half the articles is "titles". Gotitbro (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I understand that this nom is specifically for the death, a change to head of government is ITNR.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, true. I support this idea. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Because it was the original blurb that was nominated by specifically because of his death, but due to nature that it leads to change of government to new prime minister Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, this nomination certainly fits ITNR and needs to revised. But i Support it to be posted as RD. 110.137.162.247 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the above discussion over blurb vs RD is currently irrelevant, while there are still substantial parts of the article that aren't cited. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/blurb: Amadou Toumani Touré

 * Support Well referenced and quite comprehensive article. KittenKlub (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Blurbs are for changes of head of state (including deaths of heads of state), or the Mandela/Thatcher rule--figures who are at the top of a significant field, and a household name around the world. We've diversified slightly from the Mandela/Thatcher rule to allow for figures who had international significance but are perhaps less well-known in North America or Europe (e.g. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Prime Minister who brought nuclear weapons to India), but I don't believe that Amadou Toumani Touré reaches the level of international significance necessary to meet the rule, given Mali's comparatively small size in terms of population, economy, and political influence, as well as Touré's lack of regional significance within Africa as a whole.  I will grant that Touré is one of the most important politicians in Malian history, but he is likely surpassed by Moussa Traoré, who died earlier this year without even being nominated for an RD.  As such, I don't believe Touré merits a blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point about international significance is fair, although one could argue that ATT's handling of the 2007-2009 and 2012 Tuareg rebellions had regional consequences for security.  Moussa Traoré is also significant, but his article (still) needs work to qualify for RD.  Joofjoof (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD Stephen 02:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Clearly fine for an RD but don't see the significance for a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb head of state. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sven Wollter

 * Support In the Nordic countries a well known actor and political activist. Article short but quite well referenced. Bruzaholm (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That bloated lede needs to be presented in the body, where there is no narrative about his work. Stephen 20:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stephen, if this is corrected I would be able to support as the article and filmography are quite well referenced JW 1961   Talk  23:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if ref 17 is used for all items, just put something like "Source:[17]" rather than repeat that on every single line, dozens of times. Also, any interlanguage links given he was such a famous Swedish actor?  Can we use ill to link to films articles at sv.wiki?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine; though please expand the lead a bit, its entirely barebones now. Gotitbro (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fails MOS:INTRO with a sparse one-sentence lead.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Indian Premier League Final

 * I love how Indians spell it as "playoffs" and not be as grumpy as other countries who still spell it as "play-offs". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not complete, no blurb, no match summary. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why, no blurb no nothing. Support Alright, looks good now, enough refs and good amount of description. SoloGaming (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. Great Job Ktin.. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait . I understand that this is a good faith nomination to capture feedback on article page as the event draws to close in ~2 hours from now. Obviously you will update the article as the event is complete. Please place special importance on match summary in prose. In seeing recent sporting events, that piece seems to be important. You do not want to have an article with just reams and reams of tables, but, would want good succinct prose. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Premature nomination considering the match hadn't even started. I've added an altblurb in our standard format. The article will need a referenced prose summary of the match, not just scoreboards and data tables. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Struck my 'wait' vote above. I went in and added prose for the summary. Looks good in my opinion. If any additional prose edits are required, I can give it a shot later in the evening. Could not find an image from game day, so, I have updated logo. If this is not acceptable, we can go look for Rohit Sharma (captain) 's photograph. If that is not acceptable, this is good to go to homepage sans an image. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. -- Please can you all have a look. Concerns should have been addressed. I am available for a few hours for any edits that might be required. If no concerns, this should be good to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at it and it looks great now, thank you! SoloGaming (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot and . Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Already posted, but I agree it looks good. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR, looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Vincentian general election

 * Oppose on quality - article too short, needs more prose.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stubby amount of prose, tenses all over the place. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basically a stub with a lot of tables. SoloGaming (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality, no significant prose at all. Gotitbro (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why mention the popular vote split? This is quite common in the parliamentary system; I'm not sure I've seen it used before. Seems biased.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's rare in FPTP systems and I think unprecedented in SV+G. Sheila1988 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1998 Vincentian general election. 2019 Canadian federal election. 2002 Pakistani general election. 1993 Pakistani general election. 1999 Indian general election. 1981 New Zealand general election.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 06:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the third time a vote split has happened in SVG (after 1966 and 1998). Not sure if it is fair to compare a country of 110K people with India and Pakistan. Joofjoof (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now on quality. The article should at least be expanded to start class tier before posting. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 18:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I have added some prose to the article - can you check it now? Joofjoof (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * General elections are ITNR so I've added it. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been destubbed and improved by Joofjoof. It is also well referenced. I would also prefer a blurb without the popular vote split.KittenKlub (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per KittenKlub. The article has been much improved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I put as Nov 7 since that's when the results seem to have been announced? (Not sure why this was nominated under Nov 10).  Spencer T• C 13:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Saeb Erekat

 * Support Fine nom. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Because it is more worthly significant given his rule as Palestinian key negotiator, why not add blurb as well? Unless that, i would Support it to posted as RD. 36.68.199.128 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Only. Short but well referenced article.  JW 1961   Talk  14:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Peru president impeached

 * Weak support Head of state of a fairly major country impeached is pretty big global news. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality there's only a sentence-long update for 9 November in the lead, leading to the presumption that the 15 September still stands. (Consider this a support when that is fixed, as well as the other stuff like citations I didn't look through thoroughly.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Despite the fact that this became common occurrence in Peru, this is still a head of state change. Also, this will, likely, deepen the political crisis in Peru and, consequently in Latin America. My only concern is that the article is not, yet, properly updated.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb should direct either to both or to the incoming president. Let's hope someone can get the articles updated. Kingsif (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine, a head of state getting removed is major news. Gotitbro (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We already have the precedent of posting Pedro Pablo Kuczynski's impeachment and Alan García's suicide. The impeachment of a head of state is definitely noteworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per above, however Martín Vizcarra still needs a couple of cites, and I would appreciated it if that somebody could destubbed Manuel Merino. It's not bolded, but it is very basic and positions mentioned in the infobox are not covered in prose. KittenKlub (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support clearly a major event. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merino as new head of state is the ITNR element here, so that should be (at least a co-)target, and it's junk. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on article quality. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks fine. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Manuel Merino has an unreferenced section and bold or not you can't link a BLP vio on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment wow did the Manuel Merino article expand ever since I nominated this. Courtesy ping of, who was most responsible for the expansion. Banedon (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- it is strange that Peru's system has impeachment also act as removal, rather than impeachment leading to a vote on removal. That should be more clear if we are going to refer to his removal as "impeachment". -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that he chose to resign rather than go through the court battle, per The Guardian. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't resign. The congress voted to remove him and he only "accepted" it. His situation was really awful. He was vice-president. The president was impeached and he became the president. And now, he was impeached himself. Peru is in a deep political crisis, right now. The new president, Manuel Merino, will have little to none legitimacy to do anything until the next election.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, and support bolding Merino's page (with credits to Búfalo Barreto who updated it). (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 18:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to say that I share the same concern as Rockstone. We should be clear that he was removed from office, because impeachment is generally the first step in the process of removing someone from office. -- Calidum  19:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable event and articles appear to have improved. A similar event that was also ITN was the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, so more support from me for this. Also, I placed an alt blurb with a link to the impeachment article.--WMrapids (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Definitions of "impeached", "vacancy", and "removed" need to be clarified. The blurb is grammatically awkward. It also may be better to use this more relevant article instead of Manuel Merino. Can anyone go and fix that article? DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * Posted Stephen 01:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should there be an update now that Merino resigned? Separate nomination possibly with 2020 Peruvian protests article?--WMrapids (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate to make this into another ITN using the newly brought up article 2020 Peruvian protests, since the protests were mainly what pressured the resignation of Merino. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * On that note, I'll do a nomination and we can work from there. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨
 * A new blurb, but replacing this one seems reasonable. Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

 * NOTE: Theta is in the process of being added right now. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Far better suited as a DYK. --M asem (t) 03:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? We post sports records but not important meteorological records? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we already post major hurricanes that do damage and deaths when they make landfall already, which is what is considered ITN. That there is a largest number of hurricanes may reflect on other trends like global warming, though that's not yet been connected here. So its more of a curiosity that this is the largest number this season. --M asem (t) 03:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The model also supports the notion of a substantial decrease (~25%) in the overall number of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms with projected 21st century climate warming" from NOAA on climate change. They state that the number of storms will likely drop with there being more rainfall and more intense storms. That has been the status quo for predictions for some time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 03:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose we post hurricanes, not seasonal records. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear hear...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A bit of an aggressive close this time, considering that (1) the nom has only been up less than one hour, with no hint of SNOW; and (2) the closer has posted all comments but three (four counting mine), with two of those by the same person. Whichever way this goes, it would be appropriate at least to give it a full 24 hours and to have the close decision done by a non-involved admin. (After all, surely this nom was not posted solely as a false flag.) In answer to the sports model, I would point out that both season records and individual records have been posted in ITN in the past, but neither with any consistency; with the number of editor-fans of the sport/competitor in question being a definite factor in whether or not something survives to be posted at ITN. If a record such as this were to be posted, there are three appropriate posting times: (1) upon the breaking of the record, (2) at the end of season (Nov 30), (3) at the end of the year. The first identifies the date of record breaking, but would probably be subject to continued breaking of the record, 2020 being what it is. (The future Iota is NHC-predicted for the end of the week.) The second is the end of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season as defined by the National Hurricane Center, but 2005 saw tropical storms well outside that limit. The third would include all 2020 storms, but, well, editors and new year celebrations. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with the fast close and aggressive part. Not familiar with tropic phenomena much but noms should never be closed (or posted) this fast and that was a very lazy closing statement. Gotitbro (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose too many hurricanes and typhoons on ITN over the past week or so. This so-called "news" is not significant.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is not how ITN works. If there's news, we post it. This is news. I woke up to find NPR, Fox, and The Guardian blaring about it on their front page.  . ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I woke up to a serial attack in a suburb near me. It was the top news of the day. Let's put that on Wikipedia's ITN... Umm, no! Only the biggest news goes in. This is definitely NOT big.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, stay safe in your suburb. Well yeah, it's not "big news" in the Southern Hemisphere but it is in the NHEM. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Sensing the US of A is the centre of the universe)--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Never said that the US of A is and Australia isn't. The season affects Canada, the US, Mexico, Belize, El Salvador, Cuba, Hispaniola, The Lesser Antilles, Jamaica, Cayman Islands, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Portugal, Spain, Bermuda, The UK, France, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Puerto Rico, The Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Africa, Virgin Islands, etc. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But not any of Asia or Australia. Try harder...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * per ITN rules: oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm opposing. The news is not notable and it is piling up on the numerous hurricane and typhoon news over the past week or so. Your pointing to that rule is unjustified.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not notable in Australia, though notable in other parts of the world. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, US of A the centre of the universe!--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reopened. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support front-page news; a scientific record that won't be broken until decades later. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it is a harrowing reminder of climate change, this doesn't really affect anyone, and is really just a major record in it's field. Gex4pls (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same with the 5000 m record we posted 2 months ago. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 5000 m record was a large, international event, and was one of the most important records in its field. There are lots of cyclone records that are at least equivalent to this one in importance.
 * Trivial record at best.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. How is this trivial? This is trivial - Hurricane Sally was the slowest moving system ever recorded on earth. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the marines --CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We don't post records unless it involves cricket or F1. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly!~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment a sports record you don't like gets on ITN. It's not, not, not an excuse to push for other lame, pathetic, trivial records to go on ITN. It is WP:POINTY on steroids!--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) First Hyperloop trial

 * Comment needs an update. What distance traveled? Where? Built how? This test means there is an installation of the thing somewhere ... where? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks updated it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better, but we really need a section on the DevLoop. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment A better blurb is needed. What is a "hyperloop" and how is this limited trial significant in that/transport need to be reflected in there rather than throwing corporate names. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This seem very Segway-esque. The blurb reads like a press release. Our own (manufacturer-agnostic) hyper loop article should be the target article, because it actually explains the encyclopedic character of the endeavor. At a short-lived 160 km/h over the course of 500 m, this feels like an incremental step in a much larger and as-yet unrealized project.130.233.2.222 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, minor test. If/when a practical system is built and carries its first paying customers, then it would be worth posting. A limited prototype isn't enough IMO. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't seem very important, just a step in product development Gex4pls (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Gex4pls. A tech tidbit. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the ITN point for this project would be when it opens for public service. There will be many incremental steps of development and construction. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. But this is a huge leap in tech if it works out. SoloGaming (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ken Spears

 * Comment What's there is very good and referenced. A few more personal details and should be okay.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A bit too short even for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its readable prose is >1500 characters (2300ish) which about the bar for DYK and roughly the same for ITN. So this is not really a valid issue. Whether it can be expanded more given how many cartoons he was responsible for, I don't know, but it does cover the essentials we expect. --M asem (t) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose hardly anything about Spears, just all about his collaboration with Ruby and their output. Almost as if he's non-notable without Ruby.  Not comprehensive, he was apparently active for 61 years, the article simply doesn't reflect that... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was a lifetime partnership and the firm was named for Spears. It would be like complaining there's too much Roy in the Seigfried BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well there you go, that speaks for itself: we only have a Siegfried & Roy article.   The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes. But is there an objection to the article outside of "mentions his longtime business partner too often"?130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's barely any detail on the individual in question. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

 * Wait The previous ceasefire was completely ignored, so let's see if this one lasts for more than a day. Also, the blurb is way too wordy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Support altblurb and remove from ongoing Looks like this is the end of the war. That picture is hideous, though. Is there no better picture to use? Mlb96 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already covered in the Ongoing section.  Spencer T• C 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this agreement were to end the war, which seems to be the intent, then I think it would make sense to post it and remove the war from Ongoing. Whether it actually will end the war remains to be seen, however. Mlb96 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose as this seems to be the true end; target article should probably be 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement which needs some work.  Spencer T• C 23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: "A peace agreement ends hostilities in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" or something similar. Lev!vich 04:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is already covered in Ongoing. A Russian helicopter was taken down "by accident," the last ceasefire was violated before the ink was dry, and the parliament building just got mobbed by angry protesters. KittenKlub (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Changed to Wait. KittenKlub (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving from ongoing to blurb. This ceasefire should effectively end the war, given the Armenian concessions and the Russian deployment, making this significantly different from the other ceasefires.  With this development, the conflict no longer belongs in ongoing, so a blurb is an appropriate way to end the conflict. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Contra CRYSTAL I think this is the end. The downing of a Russian (not Armenian) aircraft by (supposedly) Azerbaijan, Baku's reaction to that, and the essential completion of Azeri military goals means that the war could only continue in an expanded way, in which case it metastasized into something that is not merely the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More succinct and formulaic altblurb added. Target article now included and bolded.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

*Wait Already in ongoing. A lot of political posturing has been going around since this war began, I'd say wait for news sources to actually say something substantial, like a ceasefire/agreement which are actually "followed through". Rather than blurbing every update we should wait for this to "really" end (see the comment by KittenKlub). Gotitbro (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC) We were out till after 5am (others still there but I left) last night. Also see the speaker in parliament. Hostilities are over for now. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Was going to support, forgot to update my vote. Pretty clear now that this is substantial. Gotitbro (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this was covered in the papers yesterday and appears to be a major breakthrough in the crisis. Not sure what "it's already in ongoing" is supposed to mean in some opposes above - this proposal is for a blurb, to supercede the Ongoing entry, and should be considered on its own merits. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See the history of noms relating to this war/conflict here almost every one of them was insignificant enough to be relegated to ongoing for a close. We should really be waiting for sometime than be premature with posting every update. Gotitbro (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, no doubt there have been other noms but this one appears to be significant. You can't rule something out just because other things weren't worth including. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is some more news coverage now, and the media are hopeful, but this is still a volatile situation. Putin also looks worried in that (unrelated) picture.KittenKlub (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support altburb Remove Ongoing It has been concluded and better to use picture of Azerbaijan's territorial regain map than Putin. Tensa Februari (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be posturing, if this were to be posted and Putin did play a significant part there is nothing wrong with it otherwise no image would be the best option. Gotitbro (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The box already has Armenian protests linked in. We'll see how that goes this week. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, a significant development. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Let's see if this one holds. Also, France questions its provisions. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: The Putin pic doesn't seem appropriate to the story. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support end of a war is very significant and the article seems to be basically in order. --LukeSurlt c 14:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: is it a ceasefire or a peace treaty? They seem to be used interchangeably in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article despite being completety different things. — Kpalion(talk) 17:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kremlin officially titles it a "statement", Заявление ("Statement of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation"). But by its nature it's a ceasefire agreement. Brandmeistertalk  23:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's the end of the war, and from what I saw, it's not so much a ceasefire as it is Armenia admitting defeat. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, this ceasefire will now be monitored by Russian peacekeepers who are now entering the region on a 5-year basis. Huge feedback on both sides, Azerbaijani and Armenian. However, some areas will remain under Armenian control, in that sense it's not an unconditional surrender. Brandmeistertalk  23:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb, significant development, unlike the previous ones, this ceasefire is respected.Jklamo (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Before this gets posted, can someone check the orange tag on the top? It's been there for a while but maybe the issues have been addressed in the meanwhile. --Tone 07:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The related discussion has been over 7 days and should be resolved by now. Alternatively, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement could be made the bolded target article, seems to be in a good shape. Brandmeistertalk  08:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a better solution here, the ceasefire article is not problematic. Waiting for some more support and then ready to post. --Tone 09:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per nom. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  07:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, posting. As said above, the ceasefire article will be bolded since the other one still has a tag. --Tone 10:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what happened to the image? There are no opposes for this image. The opposes were for the previous image. 98.116.113.91 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a special procedure with images that require protection at Commons, which I cannot enable. Give it some time so people in charge of images spot it ;) --Tone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Dow Jones All Time High / COVID-19 Vaccine News

 * Oppose No COVID blurbs unless/until it's over. We also don't post stock market news as this, IIRC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there's a big correlation/causation fallacy here that ignores any other possible causes that may be contributory, like the US election result. Then the treating the non-peer reviewed PR statement as facts. Good news sure, but it haven't actually crossed the finish line yet. -- KTC (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We're not speculators.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speculators? What is to speculate?  The Wall Street Journal attributed most of the increase to the vaccine.  Elijahandskip (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it? I can't tell since the article is behind a paywall.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given when we posted the massive drops in the market at the start of COVID, lets wait if there is a multi-day run record run, which would be significant. A one day peak is not really that much news, given how fast moving the market is. --M asem (t) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per KTC. These are two separate events, neither sufficiently newsworthy on their own. Teemu08 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if we link it to Bidens victory which is the obvious motivator here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as usual with these incremental record changes. We'll set a terrifying precedent of having to post it every time it happens.  No.  Thank.  You. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like formula one wins, cricket centuries, painting auction prices or soccer goals? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The ballyhooed record high didn't last. Although at one point in a.m. trading the Dow hit 1,610 pts., up 5.7%, that was only an "interday record." At market close it was up up half that much – by 834 pts. at 29,157, a rise of 2.95%. . Suggest CLOSE. — Sca (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown

 * Wait I'm not an expert on this war but I can imagine that this could escalate things. If Russia joins the conflict out-and-out, for example by declaring war on Azerbaijan or putting men in Karabakh, support. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already covered in the Ongoing section.  Spencer T• C 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as part of the Ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh war. Not individually signficant enough for me to get its own blurb. If Russian involvement intesify as per Unknown Temptation, then that can get a blurb. -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point. Unless this drastically changes Russia's stance in the war, this is part of the ongoing. --M asem (t) 20:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per KTC, Masem. One downed chopper is not by itself significant in the midst of an ongoing civil war involving thousands of combatants. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: NYT says Azerbaijan has apologized for downing the Russian helicopter. – Sca (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID addition: Vaccines

 * Comment The last discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_76 was to reduce the banner to one line. Adding it would seem to require another line.  Is that what you are proposing, or is there an alternative e.g. remove an item.—Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's stats for the relevant pages over the last 30 days. These indicate that the impact and portal pages are not in the same league as the others.  The vaccine page already gets significantly more attention, updates and traffic. So, if space is tight then start trimming from the bottom of the list. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current banner already occupies a large space, expanding/reducing it constantly for every news cycle in the pandemic is unnecessary, the current sections already cover the most visited/relevant topics. If any significant update is there for the vaccine it might be apt for a blurb and will be added to the main article anyway. Gotitbro (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I could agree to removal of "by location", since its pretty easy to get there from the main article. Its not a bad idea to add "vaccines" at this stage, since emergency use authorizations are popping up in few places around the world. Albertaont (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Premature. I think we should consider this only after a major country start mass-vaccinated it's people. We probably won't have to wait more than a few weeks. We can then blurb the event as well CoronaOneLove (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Let's wait. Most of vaccines are still undergoing clinical trials. --Tone 14:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I know that Pfizer and Novavax has just been announced but they are going through FDA approval. Wait till one companies' vaccine get approved by FDA. SoloGaming (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a major approval for human use, but I would suggest that we can probably replace "Virus" with "Vaccine" when that happened (The virus is linked in the lede of the disease article). --M asem (t) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it is shown to work and is FDA approved, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until an emergency use authorization is granted from FDA (I don't think there's any need to await full approval.) Neutralitytalk 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not yet. Pfizer might have a vaccine but until it actually begins a rollout, it's just P.R. material.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Above as there is a nomination that combined the Pfizer Vaccine with the Stock Market boost. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Hope springs eternal, but Covid death stats continue to rise, to 1.3 million worldwide as of today. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gex4pls (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose just take a look at the news also. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Conflict is certainly still ongoing,, ,
 * Oppose Very lazy nom, even a cursory look at the various current events sections here tells the war is still very much ongoing and in news. There are other related articles which are receiving significant edits (see Campaignbox 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war), this is the main article which needn't get every single update. Gotitbro (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Still going on. – Sca (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carlos G. Vallés

 * Support. Looks good. Clean start class / C-class biography. Well referenced. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. The bibliography (books) section leans a lot on the subject's own web site. But, I don't see that as a reason to hold this from homepage / RD. RIP. Update: Someone has added a tag. Would be good to fix that before sending out to homepage / RD. Seems fixed. Ktin (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When tag removed as added year.-Nizil (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Posted to RD - Dumelow (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per Ktin. Decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Christopher C. Miller appointed Acting Secretary of Defense

 * Oppose Likely temporary and non-topline bureaucratic chair shuffling.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't post cabinet-level appointments/reshuffles in other countries, so why should this temporary lame duck switch be treated differently? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another Trumper-tantrum not worth publicizing.--WaltCip- (talk)  16:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not a particularly momentous event in the global scheme of things. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Far too premature for this but the only thing between now and Jan 20th to watch for may be an ongoing if Trump continues to resist leaving the office, but it is far too speculative and premature to add anything to ITN on that. --M asem (t) 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howie Meeker

 * Any hockey fans / knowledgeable folks willing to help on this one to get this page past the last set of references before getting to homepage / RD? Ktin (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CN tags have been resolved. Joofjoof (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Thanks much for the referencing. This looks ready for homepage / RD. One more pair of eyes? Ktin (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Chase Elliott

 * Comment Unreffed section, para. Are motorsport ITNRs supposed to bold the event or the winner? For some reason I thought the opposite.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Event article is usually bolded. Stephen 07:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Link comment Blurb and altblurb currently pipe "motor racing" and "stock car racing", respectively, to NASCAR Cup Series, against MOS:EGG. It doesn't help readers like me that don't know much about either sport. Seems that last year's blurb directly linked to the page stock car racing.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If we flip the bolding to the event article, I would support posting that one, as 1) that's what we always do and 2) the event article has sufficient prose and is well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2020 NASCAR Cup Series should be the bold link, not the driver, and avoid WP:EGG. I've added alt2. The article is a monster yet is well referenced; the problem is it's missing prose summaries of rounds 35 and 36 (currently stops at round 34). Add a couple of referenced paragraphs on those rounds and it should be good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added paragraphs on the last two races of the year.  Dough   4872   00:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2, looks good enough now. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Image comment While it's a year older, this image seems better for the Main Page as there isn't that blur on the bottom left.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted ALT2.  Spencer T• C 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seymour Topping

 * Support when article is ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's basically meaningless. RDs get posted "when ready", you don't need to "support" until the article is ready.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose missing citations. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Article is well referenced now. Article now meets requirements for homepage / RD and is good to go. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced (oh, ye of little faith) and turning into a nice small article.KittenKlub (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Big improvements to this article over the course of today, well done JW 1961   Talk  18:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Trebek

 * Commenting that it is the Jeopardy! account (confirmed) breaking the news, not TMZ (as to avoid the usual problems with TMZ rushing to report). --M asem (t) 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when fully sourced / Oppose Blurb Not someone I'd heard of, but clearly quite a long career. Not a bad article, but quite a bit of that career paragraph is unsourced, as are a number of statements elswhere in the article. together with the whole videography . Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is very sad news. RIP. Thanks Alex for all the shows! I have no clue how we are going to source all the listings in the 'Television and film appearances' section. But, this article absolutely deserves the investment of time, in case someone is available. Ktin (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Extensive coverage on tv. Will hit the papers tomorrow. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It has already made it into the NYTs as breaking news. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support—of course the article needs its polish, but I would support including him in RD at least, if not in a blurb should others agree.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support upon update, maybe even a blurb. WaltCip- (talk)  17:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, the film and television appearances still need to be sourced like any other actor/television personality. Also, oppose blurb in any situation. Game show host, may be beloved name, but nowhere near top of the field. --M asem (t) 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support when the missing refs are added. Would also support blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I know Trebek is a huge household name in the US, but I'm not sure I support a blurb. I don't think a good majority of people outside of the US even knows who he is. Nahnah4 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Household name in Canada... The Guardian also saw his death as newsworthy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have said North America instead. Regardless, I stay with my stand. Nahnah4 (talk &#124; contribs)


 * Support blurb when references added. Trebek certainly meets top of his field, and is practically a household name in North America. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support great 2020 just got a whole lot worse, could use more refs Mattx8y (talk); idiot from planet earf 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD but oppose blurb. I'm sad too, but the bar for getting a blurb should be very high, and I don't think Trebek meets it. He's just not on the same level as someone like Sean Connery. Mlb96 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Sean Connery hosted game shows. WaltCip- (talk)  18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We're looking at the full area of film and television actors and personalities when talking top of the field, which would include both movie actors as well as game show hosts. --M asem  (t) 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The answer is...Support Beloved television (for some reason I struggle to use the term "game show") host and fighter to the end. CoatCheck (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support What a great man. RIP. SoloGaming (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He's pretty much a household name in the US, having been the host of Jeopardy for something like 30 years. Even those who don't watch the show have probably seen a couple clips of it, even in a movie or another TV show or something. (The article lists several of those appearances.)  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. He did one big thing, and did it really well for a very long time. BD2412  T 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)`
 * Support RD - I cannot think of a current game show host who is more notable (for being a game show host anyway) in the United States. Comment in general - There must be some happy consensus that we can reach about extensive filmographies that are not individually sourced preventing articles like this one from being posted to RD. Maybe split the filmographies out to their own articles? KConWiki (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can I ask one of you to add tags where citations are required. A bunch of us can go about filling them in, and we should be able to get this to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk)
 * Just the career section now, I think. There's a number of unsourced sentences and one unsourced paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , gave it one full pass. Can you have a look and tag what you find missing? We can fill any more missing tags post that. Ktin (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of sentences in the "Game show career" section are uncited JW 1961   Talk  18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , gave it one pass. Can you have a look and tag anything more that you find missing? I think we should be good soon. Ktin (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, that section looks great now (you're working overtime today!) JW 1961   Talk  21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks much. Filmography was difficult. But, now, largely done, I think. Ktin (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Spot checking the TV Guide source used to cover the host/acting lists is not complete. Eg, "Reach for the Top" is not listed. Keep in mind from my own past use of TVGuide as a source is that its a database maintained by TVGuide (so not a USERG problem) but if they don't have shows in their database, then it won't show up for the person in question, which will likely be the case for some of the older and non-American TV works. So additional sources are going to be needed. --M asem (t) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agree. Might need to go through the link and identify missing shows and find sources for them. Ktin (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , done! Ktin (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Blurbs relating to people who died should be the exception not the rule - and a game show host is not someone for whom that exception is made. This is the type of nomination for which the RD was created. Chrisclear (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD just came to nominate it myself, but I guess I'm too slow. Don't think a blurb is called for here --DannyS712 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only — A charming and brilliant TV personality, but not of blurb standing. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, no opinion on blurb Rest in peace. At the time that I'm writing this, the quality of the article does not appear to be poor, thanks to the editors in this thread who have been working to identify and solve issues with sourcing. I typically support blurbs for individuals who are at the top of their respective careers. It's really a question of how we choose to categorize his career. He was undoubtedly at the top of the game show host category and among the most recognizable television personalities. I think it would be odd to include all movie actors in the same category as him, because we seem to arbitrarily believe that movies are somehow inherently more notable than television shows. I wouldn't oppose a blurb given that he is a household name in North America, but I wouldn't be outraged if we only posted it to RD instead, as he's known for only one TV show, so it's hard to know how to compare his acting career to the careers of other personalities. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Consensus seems leaning against blurb, but discussion can continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, you appear to have posted an article with an entirely unsourced paragraph in the main section and a number of other unsourced statements? Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see an article with more than 100 notes and no c/n's and I think the quality is reasonable. More importantly, I see a consensus above to post it. Of course adding additional citations would be welcome, but the lack of a cite on things such as Trebek's victory on Card Sharks is not the end of the world, and there is something to be said about getting high-profile RDs onto the main page in a reasonably timely way. If other admins have a huge problem with this being posted, though, feel free to do as you wish with it without further consulting me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that isn't how ITN/RD works. Recently deceased people follow WP:BLP and must be sourced if they're linked on the main page. I'm sure none of the unsourced material is contentious but it should be sourced or removed before posting. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors in this discussion have previously asked that citation needed tags are added wherever necessary so that sourcing issues can be fixed. These tags were added, and then the sourcing issues were resolved. Since you believe that there are more areas of the article that need to be properly sourced, it would be appreciated if you added more citation needed tags so that other editors can have an easier time sourcing the article. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I pointed out twice in which section there was an entirely unsourced paragraph and a number of unsourced sentences. The unsourced paragraph has now been fixed and we're getting towards the article being ready to post. It is far better to wait a short time and get it right than to post it before it's ready. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RD noms have a serious problem with editors weighing in on emotion and not doing their due diligence. Looking at the votes here, there is little indication the article was properly reviewed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's some endemic issues with things like "Support, once the article is updated" and "Posting, because I'm an admin".  Neither are great, both are frequent... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I definitely appreciate the perspective TRM. There are problems, but the former is not really one. I am sure the posting Admin can see past the former statement. This is similar to the "Support per nom" statement at AFDs. Re: the latter statement of jumping the process to post, the latter is not endemic to RDs alone, this does happen occasionally and we have seen that happen with ITN blurbs as well. Holding RD alone to that statement might not be fair. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree in the former point. We have a number of admins who are either incapable of or simply don't try to assess the quality of the article, relying simply on the "votes".  Just because an article has 100 citations, it doesn't mean it's "well-cited".  Especially with those articles which still fall under the BLP policy.  We could have 500 citations and one unreferenced sentence like "he used to fornicate with pigs" goes unreferenced, but "it's good enough because it has tons of references".  Nope.  Several admins here aren't suitable for posting items to the main page unfortunately. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not disagree with the importance of referencing, more so in BLPs. I just think most of the regular Admins here (who post to ITN/RD) do a good job. Anyways, onwards and upwards! Ktin (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb I'll take people who aren't quite blurb material for 500. (But in all seriousness, RIP). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb based on newsworthy reaction. If NFL pregame and halftime programs took the time to mention it despite Trebek having no well-known association with the league or its programming, it follows that the reaction to his death is itself notable. rawmustard (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled Sourcing problems still persist: One paragraph completely is unsourced, and as I noted above, the single ref from the TV Guide does not fully cover all the TV and film hosts and appearances. --M asem (t) 20:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment clearly the Sean Connery of game show hosts. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing is now Done! All sections are now sourced! Filmography was difficult, but, now done! RIP Alex. Thank you for all the shows. Ktin (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagging to give this one look. Ktin (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article seems to have been patched up. Trebek is kind of exactly the kind of person RD was designed for (didn't it come out of the controversy over Ebert?). Teemu08 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now decent enough article for RD (without blurb) JW 1961   Talk  22:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, support pull but now, after a period of article improvement, support posting. Good work to those involved, other than the (once again) premature posting.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Notable death and now properly sourced. Lexicon (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Kudos to all who worked on the Alex Trebek article. Comprehensive and nicely written portrait of a compelling personality. And just about the right length. – Sca (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurbWe had posted some american judge (?) recently so I can't see why we shouldn't post him, as he is actually well known outside of the US CoronaOneLove (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you actually just equate a game show host and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg? Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely. Also the fact that her death was blurbed was a travesty and a peak example of both american nationalist and neo-liberal biases that have become absolutely pervasive on wikipedia CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb While wanting to move away from "X didn't get a blurb, Y shouldn't", Regis Philbin's death was recent and we didn't blurb him, no other similar TV host should be able to touch a blurb while that's still in the memory or it would seem like a gross oversight of Philbin. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As Kingsif mentions above, Regis Philbin wasn't a blurb, and from a search I see neither was Bruce Forsyth, whose career was very long. All three of those men were outstanding in their field, but did not change the world. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Watched this show since the beginning, so it hurts me to say it. He's just not in the ballpark of people we blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I don't think "game show host" is a broad enough category to post someone at the tip-top of that field- and in terms of television in general he was above average, but not at the top. I don't get a blurb vibe here. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Household name in the US and among the biggest gameshow hosts out there. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * U.S. – Sca (talk)


 * Weak oppose blurb per Kingsif. Unfortunately, his death was rather expected, and while arguably he is the biggest name in American game shows, others who were close in fame didn't come close to a blurb. I figure if there's several "preemptively oppose blurb" comments before any support blurbs, they're just under the line. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  00:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeanne Little

 * Support Article is interesting and well-referenced. A Filmography would be a good idea at some point, but many of her TV appearances are mentioned and cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Fails MOS:INTRO with a sparse one-sentence lead.—Bagumba (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * helloooooooo???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bones Hillman

 * Support Short article but well referenced, satisfactory for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — Noticably incomplete for a biography and leans too heavily on the lowest hanging fruit for sourcing. So "it just happens to have citations in all the right places" continues to be the standard for the "article quality"-based sausage factory around here? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  13:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and recommend pull Insufficient depth of coverage; per above.  Spencer T• C 16:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cándido Camero
*Comment. Citations needed. Also we don't post stubs as far as I know. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is at least a start class article. I agree, however, that additional cites are needed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Start class biography now thanks to the editors who did the sourcing of his discography. We should post this. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is is literally nothing in prose about the final 66 years of his life. I would not consider this to be anywhere near comprehensive enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. There's no indication as to how long he was active and there's no mention of two thirds of his life - the article is incomplete at present. P-K3 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Additional information and references have since been added.  Spencer T• C 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chief Rabbi Baron Sacks

 * Comment. Good biography. Citations needed. Also please be careful with capitalizations per MOS:CAPS; most should be lower case, thanks. This means words like chief rabbi and gala dinner. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb in principle, but article still has several citation needed tags. Most prominent Orthodox rabbi in the Anglosphere, which to me is good enough for top of his field, and a pretty sudden death given that he just recently shared his cancer diagnosis. That being said, we seem to have raised the bar from “top of his/her field” to “top of his/her field if it’s a field most contributors care about,” so I’m not sure how convincing this will be to others. <font color="#D60047">B <font color="#F0A000">zw <font color="#00A300">ee <font color="#0A47FF">bl  (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Decent article, and one of the leading figures in his field, regarded as "Chief Rabbi to the English-speaking world" ; nationally and internationally recognized, and his passing noted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, his ideological rival, Rabbi Tony Bayfied former leader of Reform Judaism in the UK, Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, Israel's president Reuven Rivlin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and no doubt more to come, . --Chefallen (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not ready. A couple of citations are still needed in the article body. Also 'Awards and honours' as well as 'Appointments' sections are basically entirely unsourced. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Oppose many citations needed, especially around the awards and appointments, and several linkrot URLs in there too. Much work required. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added cites to his online cv, for the appointments, also the awards and honours. (It seems to have been the direct original source for these sections).  Hope this is considered acceptable, per WP:SELFSOURCE.  Jheald (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the article is perfectly reasonable for WP:RD and that the cn templates are redundant, especially in the "publications" section. There are certainly places which could be improved - I am not convinced that the "appointments" and "awards" sections add value to the article and meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm ambivalent about a blurb which I could see argued either way per Bzweebl. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ISBNs now found for the publications. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I think that following todays improvements, this article is now suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - It's hard to express the importance of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks in Jewish circles around the world. The article is certainly thorough, and I would also support a blurb. --WMSR (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove 2020 Thai protests from Ongoing

 * Oppose The 3 November update at 2020_Thai_protests is still more recent than the oldest ITN blurbs per In_the_news%23Ongoing_section.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the Nov 3 update involves about a dozen people protesting Pornhub being blocked. While Ongoing articles don't need to have constant ITN-level updates, I would say that recent updates are marginal to the point that removal is warranted.  Spencer T• C 03:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. A one liner 4 days ago protesting the blocking of pornhub, and a little proseline before that going back a week. Literally the 11/2 update is someone throwing a firecracker. This was stale when it went into the box and it's long overstayed it's welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Tiny updates are not enough to keep it up forever.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Most major media outlets seem to concur. This is no longer 'ongoing'. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Protesters held Pride Parade on 7 November, which has now been update to the article. Reuters coverage here on more protests today.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial protests were 10's of thousands, this is one thousand, and still the only update of even minimal consequence for a week. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of protesters is not the sole consideration. In any event, last night's protest drew 7,000–10,000.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose removing this from ongoing. Re-evaluating this is a good thing, and should be done regularly. However, just this week there were talks of a coup, (NY Times) so it is no the right time to remove this. It is still in the middle of ongoing crisis. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is AP coverage on police last night using water cannons on protesters.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal. The recent updates are underwhelming, and the text from RSs could have described low-level weekend unrest from any part of the world right now. This is getting very news ticker-ish: a common fate for protest articles overlong in Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed Consensus and lack of significant activity since the removal request was made warrant that this should be removed from ongoing. Stephen 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted & Removed from Ongoing) US Presidential Election

 * Obvious support; it's been a foregone conclusion for a few days now, but with everyone except for Fox calling the election, now is the time. Sceptre (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Support I originally want to remove the ITN but apparently Masem has did it earlier. Support due to election being called in several news stations. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. AP called it. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Finally. Davey2116 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but "amid ongoing legal challenges" is too POV. The House and Senate should also be mentioned, although the Senate results will be difficult to clearly articulate. AP is a good enough source for the presidential outcome and I think it is valid to post it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Senate is not determined, that won't be until the GA runoff in January, so it doesn't make sense to mention yet. --M asem (t) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added ALT 4 which includes mention of a run-off, but I'd agree with just dropping it as well. Teemu08 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I have some small issues with the blurb, but I have no doubt that this is CLEARLY international news. I expect this to be posted almost immediately. The Image Editor (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; fill in the table. AP called it, CNN called it. The "Results by state" needs to be updated, and it's good to go.KittenKlub (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support What Fox claims is irrelevant. Albertaont (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * SupportI dont think we should mention the delusional challenges from the Trump campaign. Post the same blurb as we did in 2016, but with Biden's name instead of trump's CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Fox News have now called election for Biden as well. -- KTC (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative support Support altblurbs 1 & 4, oppose all others. Seems to have been called by multiple reliable outlets (AP, CNN, ABC news Fox ). I'm not a fan of mentioning the legal challenges; IIRC we've only done that with an election result when RS give credence to those challenges or to allegations of malpractice, and in this case, they are not. I've added an altblurb to that effect. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Adding; if we mention the senate result, we need to say control has yet to be determined; and if Harris is mentioned, we need to be clear that she's VP-elect. At the moment, the blurb mentioning her almost implies they are joint winners. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict four times)Support now that AP called it, but do keep the projected winner part in case Trump somehow wins the election whether by recounts or Supreme Court decisions. Ocelot Creeper  ( ta lk ) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Main blurb, the legal challenges are notable about the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - notable story. Interstellarity (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support main blurb. Backed by multiple WP:RSes, and is definitely in the news. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 16:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Remove Ongoing Congrats Joe. SoloGaming (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with Rewrite, I'd recommend "Joe Biden is projected to win United States Presidential Election". Seems odd to discount it with legal challenges that have little chance. CapitalR (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The chances of the legal challenges are not that important. Just that RS seem to think they are notable. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support But the legal challenges do not need to be mentioned. They are notable, yes, but they belong only in the article at the moment. Putting them on the moon page is lending them undue weight, given their legally tenuous nature (as supported by reliable sources). WP Ludicer (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted by Jehochman. -- KTC (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed from Ongoing -- KTC (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's been added, but there is no clear consensus on mentioning legal challenges on this page. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I deleted the mention of "legal challenges" because they are frivolous. This isn't Florida in 2000. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. (11x ec) We can't mention the Senate yet, its makeup won't be known until January 5th with the two Georgia runoff elections. Don't need to mention legal challenges, he is getting nowhere with them and it isn't even clear he has a cogent legal argument. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support but remove references to legal challenges. There is no indication they would go anywhere or have any merit, so featuring them so prominently lends undue weight. - LtNOWIS (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb, support inclusion generally. "Amid ongoing legal challenges", while technically accurate, gives WP:UNDUE weight to a phenomenon that mainstream news organizations have widely described as a sideshow intended as a political tactic (see, e.g., ). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah so I've already removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why "projected"? When Trump won our blurb just said he won IIRC. Is it because Trump has yet to concede? Nohomersryan (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically Biden won't be elected president until the Electoral College casts its votes in December. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically that's correct, but it's a formality of no practical significance or relevance. The whole world now knows Biden won the election by 279 to 213 electoral votes. – Sca (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: See "Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" – Sca (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with Rewrite The current blurb feels like it's worded very oddly. Is it precedent to say "projected President-elect"? Seems like a clearer and more straight forward blurb would be something like "Joe Biden wins the US presidential election, defeating incumbent President Donald Trump". I'm indifferent to mentioning the legal challenges, although probably lean towards not including them in the blurb. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kamala Harris should be added as well, as she has made history here. Trillfendi (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I would agree that her being the first female (and several other ethnic-related firsts) VPs is important, that might be a bit too much on this blurb given what the focus of the news has been. Don't mean to underplay her importance, but it could seem to be inappropriate. --M asem (t) 17:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting strong support – historic day and historic news. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update to: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win the United States presidential election Jehochman Talk 17:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've tweaked the format to match that which we used in 2016, although obviously it's a bit more complicated than it was then. I think it's right to omit the "legal action" though, because serious sources are not caveating it with anything like that. We didnb't include the VP last time, and the hook is already quite long, so will not add that unless there's a strong consensus here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a historic VP selection. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of the added verbiage of the house and senate stuff. Especially since that is still up in the air. Also not seeing consensus in the discussion for it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see no reason to include the Vice President. She didn't run separately. There's no other possibility if Biden won the Presidency. Natureium (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no possibility of Biden winning separate from a black woman, who turned out to be Harris. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Two things: First, the "House" link goes to the 2016 election currently instead of 2020. Second, has the House actually been called for the Democrats yet? Google (which uses AP calls as far as I know) has them at 214 so far with 218 needed for a majority, and our own article makes no mention of the Democrats having retained it. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to whoever fixed the link. I did some more searching and could not find any major sources that have called enough House seats yet for the Democrats; even if it does seem likely that they'll retain a majority I don't think we ought to be proclaiming it before the RS (and our own article) do. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * AP calls it for Biden. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also NYT, WX Post, BBC, Reuters – Sca (talk)
 * Those are all referring to the Presidency... I'm referring to the majority of the House of Representatives. Anyway looks like that part of the blurb has now been removed. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that it's been trimmed could we add Harris back into it? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Suggested Alt5: "Democrat Joe Biden is elected president of the United States and running mate Kamala Harris is elected vice president." - Sca (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's extremely awkward given it wasn't a separate election. "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are elected president and vice-president of the United States." ("respectfully" implied). --M asem (t) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, gotta disagree this time. "Elected president and vice-president of the United States" seems very awkward. (And obviously there's no such office as president and vice-president of the United States.) – Sca (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The current blurb is fine, the only thing that might be added is the result of the legislative (Congress/Senate). The Vice-President or other subsidiary positions do not go into ITN blurbs; neither is a mention of "legal challenges" needed here that is political fluff (if anything comes off it that is different matter). Gotitbro (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being trouted, the blurb has been updated to include Harris by me. News coverage of the vice presidential selection is unusually robust, and multiple commentors here have noted its unique historical importance. While there was some opposition due to length, the removal of the House and Senate portions have made those concerns moot. There were concerns about clarity, since Harris was not elected president, but 2020 United States vice-presidential election redirects to the 2020 presidential election article, so I piped the link to include mention of both presidential and vice-presidential elections. Hopefully this is enough to remedy the clarity concerns of editors like Masem and Vanamonde. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you make the determination yourself, when this is being discussed here with no consensus? There is no vice presidential election. She was only elected because Biden was elected. That is what's newsworthy. A trout is for when you make a silly mistake, not for when you decide that you know better than the people you are disagreeing with and act anyway. Natureium (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose that. We always post only the president. See in 2016, 2012 and 2008.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You ask Why did you make the determination yourself, when this is being discussed here with no consensus? and the answer is because I am an administrator experienced in closing discussions and I saw consensus to include Harris. You are incorrect that there is no vice-presidential election, see Vice President of the United States. The vice-president is elected by the electoral college separately from the president, and in the event of a tie is selected by the senate instead of the house (who selects the president). Minutiae aside, while I agree there is no consensus at the moment, your claim that there was no consensus when I edited the blurb is simply false. The first person to explicitly oppose the addition of Harris was Vanamonde who said if Harris is mentioned, we need to be clear that she's VP-elect which is pretty obviously not a blanket oppose since he included a preferred wording should consensus support inclusion (which, as I mentioned, I took into account). Three minutes after Vanamonde made the comment, Trillfendi explicitly asked that Harris be added. Masem replied, saying that might be a bit too much on this blurb given what the focus of the news has been which is not only equivocating, but rejected by multiple subsequent commentors (and Masem later proposed a wording very similar to the wording I used). Amakuru opined that the hook is already quite long, so will not add that unless there's a strong consensus here but as I mentioned in my above statement, the blurb had been shortened and so that concern was no longer relevant; that's not even my own assessment as Black Kite said Now that it's been trimmed could we add Harris back into it?. You opposed saying I see no reason to include the Vice President. She didn't run separately. There's no other possibility if Biden won the Presidency. which aside from being an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is factually incorrect according to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution (. Even if I ignore both those problems with your rationale, multiple commentators gave reasons why it should be included and you can see more comments rejecting your rationale below this comment. The last opposition was Gotitbro who said The Vice-President or other subsidiary positions do not go into ITN blurbs which ignores the fact that consensus can change and that we operate not by precedent but by consensus; at best it is a statement of what has happened not what should happen. At this point I have listed every comment that could be considered an oppose, and the conclusions I drew are based on things that other people had already said. The discussion had been quiet for 2 hours, and seeing this I saw sufficient consensus to edit the blurb to include Harris. Afterwards significant opposition appeared, and KTC rightly reverted, but your claim that there was no consensus or that I made this decision based on my own whims are not supported by the discussion. Finally, your edit removed a comment by Muboshgu which supported my assessment so please be more careful with edit conflicts in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , How is any of this page something other than ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT? The criteria instructions themselves say that it is highly subjective what is newsworthy. If you want to be pedantic, he hasn't won the election yet. It's hasn't been certified and probably won't be for some time. If you're going to start referring to constitutional amendments and say that the vice president is elected by the electors, you would have to consider that Biden hasn't actually been elected yet, because he will be chosen by the electors. Obviously, barring some huge surprise the electors will choose him, and he will be the next president. Still, voters filled in one bubble electing Biden president and Harris vice president. To your point about consensus, I would expect that for something like this, with a lot of political ideas, and serveral changes already, "consensus" would be more than a couple people. Natureium (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the control of the U.S. Senate and House is unquestionably more important than the vice president, so I also oppose this. I also don't like the wording, both because it make it seem like the elections were separate when they weren't, and since it doesn't communicate which of the two was actually elected president (yes, everyone knows, but when our job is to be explaining information, we should assume people already know it). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "vice presidential election" doesn't sound right. Preferred it before. P-K3 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed addition of Harris - Head of State and general election of the legislature are the ITNR and what we have always limited ourselves to. Feel free to add it back if there's explicit consensus for that specifically. -- KTC (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I unexpectedly had to step away from my computer and keep edit conflicting (this is like my 7th edit conflict). Thanks for reverting, I'll respond further when I'm back at my desk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The removal was completely valid, but it's going to look weird if we don't acknowledge the historic nature of Harris being elected to one of the top two offices in the US. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it look weird? Natureium (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We never acknowledged any other vice-presidents. Why is Harris any special?-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, first female VP? That's a big deal IMO. Which obviously wasn't the case in previous years, so it's not comparable. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what's being said. 'Harris is elected as the first female vice president' would be about the notable part of her being vice president. Just mentioning her in the blurb doesn't help. Natureium (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review Kamala Harris and look at her picture to learn why this is special. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Add defeating incumbent Donald Trump to blurb. The media has widely characterized the race as moreso a referendum on Trump than anything else, so I think it's important to note his defeat, not just Biden's victory. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? I think 99.999999999995% of people know who Biden defeated.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mentioning Trump; there's already a lot of information we're trying to pack into the blurb(Harris) and people are well aware of who Biden beat. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Donald Who? – Sca (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I totally would have forgotten who the election was between if he hadn't said that. Natureium (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No seriously. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 23:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 99% of people also already know that Biden won. We shouldn't be assuming that people know things when our purpose is to inform them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is absurd. The news is that Biden won.  And no, 99% of people don't know he won. In fact, large portions of America think Trump won still.  I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Harris is notable for reasons enumerated above, and now has made history on her own. Her absence from our blurb likely will be seen by more than a few as sexist. Prefer Alt5. – Sca (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with, Harris' VP-elect status is something special and should be noted in the blurb. To not do it will cause its own set of issues.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sexist, racist and plain ignorant of how new voters rolled. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From a non-US perspective, the inclusion of the second-in-command seems a bit odd. I can't imagine we'd even be discussing it for any other country? /Julle (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Misleading! — Not a single reliable source states that "Biden wins". It is very misleading to insist that Biden wins the election. He is only projected to win by the media. Stop manipulating Wikipedia! 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When you're ready to join the rest of us in the real world, we'll be here. WaltCip- (talk)  00:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, IP, every reliable source has stated that Biden has won. Sorry if that isn't what you wanted, but this isn't the place to come and complain about things not going your way.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NY Times: " The news media projects winners and reports results; it does not declare the winner of the election. " https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1323766738509586432. Wait until we have an official declare from the Federal Election Commission, or, in this case, a ruling from the United States Supreme Court. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, reality is just around the corner. WaltCip- (talk)  02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be that eventual consensus will override this, but I don't see a consensus yet to include Harris. And I still think it's better that she should not be included in the blurb. It's historic yes, and a great day for Harris and minority women generally, but the VP is is not in itself a massive deal, not is it ITN/R, so unless the significance of her election is specifically stated then it just looks odd to be including it. We did not do this for any prior US election, nor do we for those in other countries. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree on this one, women (i.e. 51% of the population) and people of colour have been waiting for this kind of acknowledgement for decades. Without wishing to sound patronising, this is a story for all of us.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Over two dozen decades, yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Add me to those requesting the addition of Harris. It's a ground-breaking event for women and people of colour, and is being reported as such in the UK (eg the BBC & The Guardian). Espresso Addict (remote) (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Harris re-added. Given Wugapodes detailed and thoughtful analysis above, and Espresso's additional support added to the many editors that had already expressed support, it seems like the tide of opinion is heading towards inclusion of Kamala. I have therefore self-reverted myself to reinstate her. I'll be going offline shortly so this will be my last involvement here. Other Admins are free to continue editing the hook as the consensus dictates, and I have no special attachment to any particular formulation at this stage. Cheers all and good night &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose VP addition because that's just not ITNR and I see no real consensus for Kamala Harris's addition here. This is just more of the American-centric bias. At this rate, I'm seeing that even the inauguration would get posted somehow. Depressed Desi (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's going to be centred on America, regardless of which conjoined candidate we pretend didn't draw the same numbers to win the same election; if their inauguration shows up here later, same story, shared news. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. Support posting it now, and support the current blurb; the inclusion of the word "presumtive" may be useful, however, but saying he's "won" isn't inaccurate. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  05:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The current blurb does not coincide with the proposed blurbs nor with any text found in the article. The article never states that Biden has won, rather they use caveats like:

"All major news outlets projecting the race have projected that Biden has won the election, including ABC News, the Associated Press, Business Insider, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and Vox.[5] Counting continues to determine the final results. "

and

" Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the 2020 presidential election, pending the formal voting by the Electoral College in mid-December, is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021"

I propose that someone with the capabilities to do so, restore the blurb to any of the 5 proposed blurbs, as these are the ones that were supported by polled consensus, and they accurately reflect the wording of the article. Previous discussion on the subject Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news --TZubiri (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't vote on particular blurbs. They often change as the discussion progresses. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden has won, that is self-evident from the vast array of reliable sources reporting as such. When RS start saying he hasn't won then we can change accordingly.  Until then, this is accurate.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Elections in the US are a dumpster fire. The objectors are technically correct, Biden is the the "presumptive" winner until the states certify and delegates pledged. That said, it's in the news now and it'd be absurd to wait for some arcane process designed 250 years ago to disenfranchise black people and give slave states disproportionate power. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the extraordinarily unlikely possibilities that:
 * Recounts overturn results in 3 states for Trump,
 * Biden dies between today and December 14,
 * Biden states that he would not be taking office in order to focus on his lifelong dream of becoming an ice cream vendor,
 * Over 50 electors or whatever is needed become faithless electors and vote Trump,
 * Then the hook would be wrong. However, I think nobody would fault ITN for not accounting for such issues when even the AP or Reuters already calls the race. Juxlos (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Bolivian general election

 * Comment - What...when did Trump and Biden "self-declare" themselves president? Plus, the source in Spanish don't say anything about Camacho sef-declarimg himself president. Also, this IP is trying to insert this information without RS at 2020 Bolivian general election article.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant self-declare victory. My wording problem. Also I don't understand what part of BBC do you think is not reliable? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC article is about the "supposed" bomb attack against Arce (supposed because it was reported by his own party).-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't trust the victims, as I said, feel free to rewrite the sentence. I'll try to make it more neutral. But FYI Carlos Orlando Gutiérrez sought help from IACHR but IACHR doesn't take it. Now he died of an attack and the Bolivian opposition declared something like "even if he wasn't attacked he'll still die". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only Trump declared victory, not Biden. Whatever you said was false IP. SoloGaming (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay fine. If we have to be that cynical and accurate one declared victory and the other declared prospected victory. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any indication that Arce will not be sworn in.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no clear sign indicating he'll not, in the sense of there's no clear sign indicating Trump may prevent Biden from taking in office. I don't quite understand the criteria of ITN but somehow the ITN for Bolivian election was posted as a blurb before the official result was out while the US election managed to occupy ITN longer by first appearing as an "ongoing" and later reappearing as a standard blurb after the official result is out. Probably when Trump rejects the official result there will be a third one. I hope it's not due to our system favor the United States over Bolivia and remembered Wikipedia had a commitment against Anglo-American centrism so hopefully if this ITN cannot get passed I expect we can reach some agreement on whether (or in which situation) an election dispute meets the criteria of ITN. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The US election has not had an official winner. Arce is already declared a winner, posted to ITN, and received congratulations from foreign countries. If Trump threatens to not leave office (which I believe he already did) or threatens to stop Joe Biden from taking office through, say, military action, it would not be posted. If Trump actually executes the latter threat, it probably would. However, Camacho seems to still be in the threaten phase. And unlike Trump, Camacho is neither an incumbent nor second place. Juxlos (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification! So basically when our itn posted Bolivian president-elect Luis Arce before the official result is out, it should have been posted to the "ongoing" section (just like what we do now to the US election) but simply people forgot that option, and in the future if a country has a prolonged election with two or more candidates declaring victory it should be put into ongoing like the US/Bolivian one before official result is out. Your mention of execution makes a great point. Domestic violence incited by a candidate should not be classified as an execution. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait if I remembered correctly, Arce has been accepted as the winner by foreign countries, the US included. If Camacho actually tries to launch a takeover then we would post it, but otherwise this is just a sore loser's threat. Juxlos (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. So presumably if Biden's victory is internationally-accepted and Trump incites domestic violence without actually launches a takeover via military, I suggest it meets the same standard. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Per above, what will happen is still speculative. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even in local opposition news, the most solid event is planning protests. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close Can't tell if this nom is a joke or not. Luis Arce has been elected full-stop. Albertaont (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't discriminated domestic violence incited by a candidate from an execution of power-taking well and probably overestimated the power of the Bolivian-equivalent of Proud Boys. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close - Per above and my own rationale. The sources are weak and this IP is cleary trying to push his own POV.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: King Von

 * Oppose: some cn tags that need to be resolved.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 04:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Mostly fine but the cn tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Discography is not referenced, would change to support when cn's are fixed JW 1961   Talk  12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A well known Rapper whose Murder made International news, during an election cycle which only serves to highlight his significance and why he should be included on the recent deaths page SPOIronheel (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Sam Anson

 * Support Short but good nom. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support short but sufficient, decently referenced JW 1961   Talk  11:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Solid C class biography. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would like to see a tad more in the "Career" section; large gap in coverage between 1981 and 2015. Not a "Weak Oppose", but I can't support either.  Spencer T• C 03:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Nice work with the expansion and improvement, the article came a long way.  Spencer T• C 06:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Marurai

 * Support Plenty of refs, though the source of death appears to be unknown currently. Gex4pls (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in good shape. Not many sources on his death yet (only 3 and 1 is a copy) at the moment for specifics, however Cook Island News promised full coverage tomorrow (it's night there), so you might want to keep an eye on that site for some more details.KittenKlub (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Political Career section needs structure (it could be several sections). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Taut but fine. Gotitbro (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Geoffrey Palmer

 * Oppose based on sourcing issues. His career section only has two refs, and the usual issues on the filmography section.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Career" section is missing citations and the "Appearances" section is largely uncited - Dumelow (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Career section needs citing. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much unsourced info. Gotitbro (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kosovo's president resigns
{{ITN candidate {{ITN candidate }}
 * article      = Hashim Thaçi
 * article2     = President of Kosovo
 * image        =
 * blurb        = Hashim Thaçi resigns as President of Kosovo amid charges of war crimes.
 * recent deaths = no
 * ongoing      = no
 * altblurb     =
 * altblurb2    =
 * altblurb3    =
 * altblurb4    =
 * sources      = AP
 * updated      = yes
 * updated2     =
 * creator      =
 * updater      = Memedhe
 * updater2     = Buidhe
 * updater3     = 47.20.177.163
 * ITNR         = no
 * nom cmt      = A change to a head of state. Some stray {{tl|citation needed}} tags but the article is free from major problems.
 * nominator    = Feminist
 * sign         = feminist (talk) &#124; free Thailand 18:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see two issues. Thaçi article is not fully updated and Kosovo is not a fully recognized state.-- SirEdimon {{sup| Dimmi!!! }} 19:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominate the New President's article instead - {{u|SirEdimon}}, this might be WP:ITNR: see Closed}} Kosovan presidential election|this previous discussion. We should probably nominate Vjosa Osmani, as she is now acting President. The article has been updated; it just needs a bit of polishing. Joofjoof (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The (indirect) election of the President of Kosovo would be ITNR. Acting Presidency isn't. -- KTC (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

{{abottom}}
 * Oppose The court decision from the ICJ would be more relevant than this. Gotitbro (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If there's indication that election of the new President is soon, then I would wait for that with a combined blurb. -- KTC (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with a new president article included. ITN/R and the ICJ may take a while to indict or rule not guilty. Juxlos (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) US officially withdraws from Paris Agreement

 * Oppose For Now Right now we are in the elections, Biden has said that the US will rejoin the Paris Accord. Trump hates the Paris Accord and will get rid of it. If Biden wins do not post it. If Trump wins however, then sure post it. SoloGaming (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Per above. Gex4pls (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Election saber-rattling at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm seriously confused as to what this had to do with an election? Albertaont (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden wants back in on the Paris Accord, if Biden gets elected then he will join back in. Wait until election results SoloGaming (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose absurd timing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no matter what the outcome of the presidential election is. This is simply not notable enough for coverage on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose completely overshadowed by the presidential election. Banedon (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this might be one of the fat retards his last gifts to America but it's still noteworthy. The United States is economically powerful and highly polluting. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure "retard" is something we say these days, even about Trump. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Crude terms for crude people, but stricken none the less as utterly inappropriate for WP. Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The Paris Agreement is one of the most notable global agreements, the United States is the world's second-largest polluter, and the United States is the first defector from the agreement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is widely reported around the world. Also what happens in the elections today is irrelevant to this, which is a separate topic. There is also no requirement that ITN can only post one item from a country. Albertaont (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Only if Trump wins, as Biden intends to rejoin. TheMrP (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I can totally understand that Biden intends to rejoin. But whether or not Biden intends, or actually does rejoin would only happen months if not years later (i.e. it would need to pass the house and senate, and be signed into law...) WP:CRYSTAL should apply. This is ITN now, not post-election.104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't notable plus everybody already knew about this years ago. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Biden says he would rejoin immediately. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Could be spun too much since it coincides with the election, and may not even be the end of the story. The US intention to withdraw was already posted, too. Yakikaki (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already posted, widely expected, and the article is not updated in a way that makes this clear. The body of the text states that The lede states that they withdrew "in 2020". The imprecise use of "withdraw" is confusing and efforts to clear up my own confusion only reinforces my !vote.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: United States elections

 * Comment Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. Gex4pls (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals.  This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow.  I suggest we post to ongoing until then.  Jehochman Talk 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, thanks for the clarification.


 * Comment How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. 2020 Guyanese general election was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. KittenKlub (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did  Bush v. Gore in 2000. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My view remains the same as the one I expressed in the nomination below—this is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and the sooner we get something on the front page, the less behind the curve we'll be. The "this is U.S.-centric" objections from the nomination below fail to acknowledge the extraordinary level of international interest in the U.S. election. (For the record, I'd similarly support an ongoing blurb for other massive elections like India, but that's for another time.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Senate and House election articles are not updated. Would suggest congressional results as a blurb once these are done as per WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm listing an altblurb that we could post now. The extremely unusual and newsworthy thing is that president Donald Trump has falsely claimed victory.   Jehochman Talk 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --M asem  (t) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you created it, but it is an unnecessary focus on one detail of the election that is judging Trump. It absolutely should be covered in the election article (as it triggered more of Twitter's labeling and other facts), but in a Main Page blurb about the election, it stands out as a non-neutral facet of the current state of the election. Further, it is not like Trump has been tauting that all day. He said it this morning, then has been on the lawsuit-challenge since. We can't be too eager to post something and cloud our judgement here on neutrality of blurbs. --M asem (t) 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb makes sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No no and no dear systemic bias. ITNR is for the results of the general election and the result of the presidential election. Aboslutely no flipping way to ongoing. Result of votes takes time to count in many elections, there is no reason why the US get a post when we would absolutely never post such for other votes. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wdym, we post it for other countries as well. SoloGaming (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb Post after candidate is announced. I also stated how ongoing should go for this below. (Changed This BTW) SoloGaming (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb If there's a more delicate way to state the fact that Trump has falsely claimed victory, I'm all ears. But it'd be strange if we didn't post something soon, and altblurb is about the most we can say. A Biden victory is likely, but it won't be official without Nevada (which won't be called until at least Thursday), or perhaps Pennsylvania (at least Friday, barring court challenges). The Senate is likely to stay Republican, but right now it's possible that Senate control is decided by runoffs in Georgia on January 5. We can do additional blurbs when those two results become official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also support ongoing, but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. SoloGaming (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "Aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election" would be merited. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be fine, if the results are not in by... idk tomorrow morning 8AM Eastern, then yes you should. SoloGaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe prematurely or mistakenly instead of falsely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Right now, most major networks/papers have now called both WI and MI for Biden (including Fox!) leaving him a couple states that he was already leading in and unlikely to lose with additional mail in vote counts that are ongoing (AZ+NV) that gets him to 270, and both are likely to have more results in the next 4-6 hrs. So I suggest we just wait until around 04:00ish and if there are no major results coming in, toss something up, but we'll likely have a "press-called" result here really soon, and we just need a blurb that makes this clear this is a press call with legal challenges in the wings. --M asem (t) 22:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold until reputable outlets call the election, oppose including House and Senate results in blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Result of a general election is ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we should only wait until AP (Associated Press) says who won. AP is the most credible source. SoloGaming (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait until one of them gets to 270 (via AP/network calls). P-K3 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no need to treat it different than any other election. Wait until a winner is announced, the article is updated and referenced, and then post it. All this crystal ball stuff about ongoing should stop. Again update the article before posting. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not a breaking news ticker, please be a bit patient this is neither Ongoing material nor are ITN nominations supposed to be WP:CRYSTAL. Gotitbro (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Request To Close for now?? SoloGaming (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing only. Of course: this is going to run and run and run and it's newsworthy now it's happened. As long as we don't rush to post erroneous hooks (and after all, posting the title of the target article is relatively safe, even around these parts bearing in mind some terrible recent decision-making!!) there's nothing really to lose from an ongoing entry.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing only per The Rambling Man. Trump has already filed a lawsuit for the vote count in Michigan and, frankly speaking, we might end up with Biden winning the election and then the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Trump. There's no need for a haste and the possible righting of wrongs that no-one wants.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, four words (2020 United States elections) in the ongoing section covers all the evils. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. SoloGaming (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice.  So  ONGOING is the only way to cover this.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man True, Trump is taking legal action... I see your point, especially since nothing is happening right now.SoloGaming (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ongoing the rest of the world is watching . Banedon (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing agree (for once) with Banedon this election is making global headlines and the WP:ITN is served by putting this into OG for a day or two until the results are finalized. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, we're not "holding our breath". In fact, it's like a soap opera.  And depressing, at that. Most intelligent Europeans (for instance) knew this was going to descend into a childish shitshow, and lo-and-behold. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Has it become childish? States ran their elections differently because of COVID-19 and results are taking longer. Biden is being calm and presidential, and Trump is being Trump. Seems status quo really. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have results  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours, so I don't see the need to put it in ongoing for now. There's no rush. Wait for for results, as we do with all the other elections around the world. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours is the quote of the year. This election has weeks left before it gets announced.  If we don't put it in ongoing, we'll have a month of debate over the "blurb" required to handle all the legal machinations as Trump has called it "fraud" and already placed his Supreme Court judges in place, just in case.  Good grief, we should be encyclopedic about this and just chuck it as a line item into Ongoing thus avoiding any kind of spin/speculation.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, I guess I was being overly optimistic then. Good to get quote of the hear though! I expected to wake up this morning and read that someone was over the line. Ah well, since Ongoing has already been posted I'm not going to object to that. But let's only upgrade to a blurb if something like a result is available. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for 270. Oppose ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At 270, what do we post? Trump launches legal action?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming its for Biden: "Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the U.S. presidential election based on preliminary vote counts amid ongoing legal challenges by incumbent Donald Trump." It's not committed (so we're not claiming Biden won, book closed) and informs readers that there's still more coming and could possibly change. --M asem (t) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That it is either a tie or trump wins. Stop acting like a child demanding everyone agrees with you. You made your point, let others make theirs, "intelligent European."2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NPA!, you don't need to attack people for their election predictions. Gex4pls (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we ignore Trump and just post whatever the failing New York Times and other FAKE NEWS!1!! outlets publish. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's much cleaner, in such uncertain times, to just push this to ongoing while the meltdown occurs and then publish an ITN blurb once Biden has managed to dismiss Trump entirely. In the meantime, we're just in for a cavalcade of biased blurbs which won't help anyone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only election results are posted to ITN. Not the mere existence of an election in which people can vote. If ITN were to post 'vote counting' for the US election then it should also post the same for the Palau presidential election which also took place on November 3. Chrisclear (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has nominated it. Their results are ITNR too, but we need the article up to speed and a nomination to review. --M asem (t) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral for ongoing and wait for blurb I am neutral on adding the page to ongoing, since it is likely the results will be contested for weeks if not months. But if the Associate Press and all other major networks call the race within the next few days (or hours), I would suggest a blurb to that effect. There is no bias if all states have reached the same consensus and reported their counting as complete. It's reasonable to assume for now that large-scale voter fraud is not the case...Belugsump (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing - Pageviews are already spiking. Our readers are looking for this, so we might as well link to it. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post ongoing ballot counting process. As soon as the outcome is known, it won't be as big a news story as it is right now anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Nothing is called yet, blurb is mostly crystal on the Senate in particular. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It does make an interesting statement that a U.S. political election could even be considered for the ongoing section. I must admit, for my part, I never thought to see opposing U.S. protests over "Stop the vote" and "Count every vote". That being said, what with U.S. election laws (by state) being all over the board, maybe it is past time for WP to clarify what, *exactly*, would be acceptable parameters for a U.S. election win -- and keep them for all future elections. In the past, it was usually glossed over with network projections and concession speech, but clearly that is not going to work anymore. Is it when the networks declare it (usually when enough electoral college votes have been network-declared to reach 270 for one candidate)? Is it when all the counts have been stated officially? Is it when the electoral college votes (see Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election)? Is it when all the court challenges expire? Is it when the president for the new term is actually sworn in? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It also happened in 2000. See Bush v. Gore.  Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the first edits to Wikipedia 18:08, 27 March 2001 diff hist +1,820‎  N Shotgun ‎ Help me! :-) I'm a country boy from Alabama, but I've been in the city for a looong time.) happened after Bush took office. Count Iblis (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP - launched January 15, 2001. The Bush-Gore issue, resolved only a month before, was still very, very raw. (Remember I mentioned above that a non-binding Florida recount was being pursued and did end up happening?) Although the articles did not come into existence in anything like their current form until near the end of that year, vandalism was happening almost immediately upon creation. ITN did not exist yet, of course. That came about shortly after 9/11, and was originally called "Current events and breaking news". (Yeah, I have been paying attention to this piece of pop culture for some years now.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing News coverage around the world, probably the most visited article at the moment. Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (first alternative); oppose altblurb as US-centric and misleading (why highlight Trump when it's apparent that Biden won?). We routinely report the apparent result of elections according to reliable sources. By now reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the apparent winner of the election; hence it would be entirely standard practice for Wikipedia to report the result of the election. We don't usually wait for formalities when posting the results of elections in other countries when there is an apparent winner according to reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not assured that Biden won. If Trump holds on in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where he's currently ahead, and then wins Nevada or Arizona, which are leaning Biden on thin margins, then Biden will not win.  Arizona was called for Biden, but it looks like that was a mistake; the state is still in play according to Nate Silver. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - Nothing has been called yet so wait until we have a defined winner. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Since results in several states are being dragged into the courts by the apparent sore loser, Ongoing seems logical for now. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Later today major media outlets will probably announce a winner. When that happens, because the significance has already been decided, the final step will be to make sure the article has been updated, and then it can be posted.  Let's keep this discussion open, and I'll make a separate section. I believe the item should remain in ongoing after the blurb is removed so long as the result remains disputed. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull Ongoing: the event is bound to be posted once the result is announced thus this American-centric bias is not needed when no other countries' election are ever going to get posted on Ongoing. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover.  What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage.  If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing".  Jehochman Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker, we do not reflect what happens in the newspapers. Yes, the elections are likely the top story in the globe, but we are immune to that artificial elevation. --M asem (t) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull ongoing. Fuzheado, there is no consensus here for posting and for ongoing. When the election is called then Wikipedia should post the results, just like dozens of other countries in this world. If the Associated Press made a mistake and retracts Arizona, then we might have reason for ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull ongoing. I don't care how important the U.S. thinks it is. We don't do this for elections.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario.  The absurdity of it all.  The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system.  The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump second time round!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No other country has the long dragged-out electoral system of the U.S. I cannot think of another western country which does not habitually know its presidential / prime ministerial election results, or close enough for victory/concession purposes, within a day -- with occasional exceptions of course, but they are exceptions, not the increasing norm. In most modern elections, the U.S. two-party system reduces the choice to a simple dichotomy, which in turn minimises the overall delay. (The occasional experiments with a third party arising from an in-party split did not survive much beyond Theodore Roosevelt, and they did not give all that good results even then. Lincoln may have been their last real success story, and I think those were circumstances we do not particularly wish to see again.) Here and now, however, support in many key locations seems very closely balanced between the two parties, with little likelihood that either side will budge much. This makes final outcomes much closer to 50:50 in many key areas, so much so that tendencies for one party to vote in a particular way will suddenly start to make a great deal of difference in battleground states. Significant delay in final results is thus increasingly inevitable, and also somewhat unique to the U.S. system. It is important to keep in mind that this is specifically designed into the U.S. system, first with its ongoing emphasis on remote/mail voting, second with its state-based approach rather than a single centralised election authority, third with its attitude toward litigation, fourth with the electoral college. (I leave discussion of per capita state representation and law-based voting suppression to -- somewhere not here -- and less volatile times.) The system originally evolved from frontier requirements and assumed a heavily rural vote away from the east coast cities, and in its essence it never substantially changed to take into account faster transportation and communication, in part because of its ongoing internal resistance to *anything* centralised ... so we cannot expect the results to ever be other than "ongoing" so long as the country remains so close to equally split. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling – Like it or not, this remains the No. 1 story (or No. 2, behind the virus), in terms of significance, worldwide. As news it's still going on. It wouldn't serve our readers to banish the topic from the Main Page just because the outcome hasn't been conclusively resolved. When the accursed Electoral College formally reports, it'll be an instant blurb. Thereafter, if court cases still drag on, it eventually will go back to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: – DT suits in two of three states dismissed. – Sca (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. In evaluating this, I see a consensus for ongoing, including from non-US users to boot.  In any event, we may have a winner called later today if Pennsylvania and Georgia finishes counting ballots and this will be moved to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave it up – while I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who make sure the main page isn't too US-centric, the whole world is watching this, and our articles on the election are informative, well-written, and worth reading. – bradv  🍁  15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article I see has a state results section with no results for any state, for any candidate, three days later. That seems uninformative. And cruel to pretend the Green Party (or lower) is still in this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support keeping as ongoing I'm struggling to find ANY non-US english language news outlets that haven't had this as a top story for multiple days now. Is it unique to have a national election as an ongoing news story? Yes. But it's tough to argue it doesn't clearly meet our criteria for it, and given the clear global interest would be just silly to say it is too focused around one country's news.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. Examples:     — Sca (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing Um, almost all media in the world right now are giving this ITN coverage. To say this is US-centric is intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the ITN page right now that could be remotely construed as being US centric. Albertaont (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling Yes this is US centric but with how popular US politics and because of the impact is this is like the #1 story worldwide at the moment. And there should be some final calls 'today', Biden just needs one state, so this (shouldn't) become an eternal Bush v. Gore situation. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling it is certainly ongoing and probably will be for a while, getting worldwide attention (top story here in Ireland) JW 1961   Talk  20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull This is a very bad precedent. The whole world is watching is a massive over generalisation and just takes the whole systemic bias to a new level. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder of the ITN criteria:
 * To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. ✅
 * To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. ✅
 * To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
 * To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. ✅
 * It ticks all the boxes. And until it's done and dusted, we can formulate a suitably apt blurb, ongoing is a great compromise. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull Nothing approaching consensus to post. C'mon.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post posting support This is big in the news, the article is fine, so what is all this opposition about? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sheer cussedness. – Sca (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Muboshgu, tonight there were some good answers on the PBS Newshour. Yamiche Alcindor said that Mr. Trump's legal strategy is one he has used for years, "flooding the zone" with information, disinformation, lawsuits, and accusations. I think it was John Yang who said that strategy is doomed to failure. Alcindor or Yang said that Trump's misinformation machine has Rudy Giuliani on RT saying that Joe Biden has mental problems. Then Jeffrey Brown interviewed Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, who said everything he's seem so far is "small bore", i.e. nonsignificant, litigation, and that it potentially could drag out for weeks or even longer. I do not feel Wikipedia needs to give Mr. Trump another venue for ongoing complaint. William Brangham said the whole thing has personal and emotional tolls on people. When the AP calls this we should have a blurb and then the story should go away like any other country. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull, not for cussedness, but lack of information on who's won which state's electors (except only Florida). That's important and verifiable, in context. It's purposely absent from the article, but still not there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as proposed, when called by AP ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing until a president-elect is decided. It's beyond "in the news" and any statements to the contrary are utterly ignorant of the purpose of WP:ITN. Crafting a non-partisan blurb is a bit risky so going with a simple link in ongoing is the safest route for the time being imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pennsylvania is going to Biden, so the race can be called for Biden. The real news is not that Biden won, but that the Trump is getting support for his bogus arguments from senior GOP members. If local legislatures support Trump, they may throw out votes and appoint Trump electors, see here: "So on Fox Gingrich advises President Trump to have Bill Barr arrest election workers in Pennsylvania and then have the state legislature throw out the results of the election.". Count Iblis (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. Count Iblis (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to speculate. Soon the counting will be largely complete and a winner is likely to be apparent. Meanwhile, could we please get eyes on the target article?  It needs updating.  A "consensus" of two editors is blocking me from  posting the electoral vote totals and map as they currently exist.  We need more editors to weigh in to generate a clear consensus.  Jehochman Talk 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Im Moment gibts nichts neues zu berichten. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And now enough votes have been counted to put Biden in the lead in PA. Any moment now the networks will start calling the race in his favor.  Are we ready to go?  See my comment above.  The target article will need an update when PA is called. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden wins.  Can we please work on updating the target and get this posted?  I like Altblurb2.  Jehochman Talk 14:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not rely on a single source, though I agree it would be better to have multiple sources. That will happen very soon.  Jehochman Talk 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait at least until AP calls it for Biden (this will not stop anybody working on the target article), but preferably also until either CNN or Fox does so too (RT, which gets its data for this from AP, has been showing Biden as having won Arizona for at least 24 hours after Fox withdrew this, so I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that AP has also not withdrawn it, while CNN never called it for Biden, despite CNN being clearly pro-Biden - it might not be good for Wikipedia if we jumped the gun and thus made supposedly neutral/unbiased Wikipedia appear more pro-Biden than CNN). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Belated Post-Posting Support for Ongoing pet TRM above (pointing out it ticks all the boxes, and perhaps also because nobody who knows ITN can accuse TRM of pro-US bias). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 👍 The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – NYT hasn't called it yet. Neither has WX Post. We should have them in addition to AP. (Fox? Fergit it.) – Sca (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing as this has become an unusual situation and may continue to be something readers are likely to be looking for, and likely will be for some time to come. As TRM pointed out, this is a good compromise. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for Biden's opinion IF he accepts himself as president-elect, we post, if he says we should wait, we wait. Simple as that. CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. For us it's the major media making the move. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have an open RFC on Wikipedia's source for who wins when. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Faustas Latėnas

 * Comment Please reduce the number of ill links in the body, looks a sore to the eye and neither are so many helpful. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are three interlanguage links, that isn't an excessive number. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better interlanguage link than red link or no link. They are even accepted in featured articles. I they bother you, make stubs yourself. I don't read Lithuanian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have had articles on RD with 3 or 4 interlanguage links before, and never heard of a problem with it until now. As they encourage article creation, interlanguage links are good, better than no link or red links. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and good to go. As an aside, for me, the interlanguage links should be encouraged, not removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ҥ (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Talbot

 * Support fully sourced now, good to go. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support reference work done. Great job! - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A tiny section and single award need reference otherwise looks good.  please see if you can fix these. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now, it does not feel good to oppose/not support for a few errors when most of the article is fine but that is how it goes. thanks for fixing the issues. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – As one of the major contributors to the article, I've gone and added the requested refs. Graham 87 17:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article it is in good shape now. KittenKlub (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like from the page history another user aussiesportlibrarian had updated the article re the RD.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Eta

 *  Support I spend 4 hours off wikipedia and the death toll increases from 4 to 70? I thought a bullet was dodged, but I guess I was mistaken. Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Hold up. Now 70 dead. Death toll will keep rising sadly. Hurricane Mitch. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, support in principle Category 4 hurricane, but it seems that the full extent of the damage remains to be evaluated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait Needs a more holistic picture along with a clear death count. Gotitbro (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Support Not only do we need to wait until the full extent of death and impacts from the system is revealed, but the future of Eta is still uncertain as well, as to whether or not it will bring more impacts that will be noteworthy. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold Now support – fortunately the hurricane has claimed a low amount of deaths in Nicaragua as of this comment. But the hurricane is not dead yet, and as the news just pointed out Florida is taking heed as the system is forecast to approach the state.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Right now the death toll has risen to 57! Perth Now--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Not a very deadly storm, but it could still be worth mentioning with information about flooding and landslides. We do have potential impacts in the U.S, but I wouldn't count on them being very notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is high quality, news media is giving this story high prominence. Checks all of the boxes for ITN.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the "wait" votes above were when the blurb read "three deaths". The death toll is currently up to 13.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PP Comment Death count now 181! The blurb should probably be something general, like "hundreds killed", as the death count rises. Gex4pls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "over 70" should cover that, but updates like this should go over to WP:ERRORS. --M asem (t) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * blurb somewhat misleading as the article indicates 90% of casuality was in Guatemala. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene expectations of homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Selected 'ography sections need to include the criteria for selection. I can't remember the policy abbreviation offhand, but the relatively short list in the body clashes with the claim of 350+ in the lede.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this one, IP Editor. The link to filmography is only a subset of films. The number itself is referenced by RS sources. Ktin (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads and . This means, that the the template List criteria should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with List missing criteria. "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. I have tagged it now. Hopefully this should be good. If this proves to be an issue, I would rather remove that entire section while we send it to homepage / RD. Article meets requirements even without that section. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The article is well referenced. Personally, I think that the short list of films is appropriate. KittenKlub (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 United States elections

 * Courtesy link: There is some further discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm relatively new to ITN so perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what the point is of posting about the U.S. elections before polls close. There is a real chance that there will not be a winner declared on election night and may not be declared for several days, which is something we should prepare a blurb for, but just posting that elections are ongoing when results will be coming in just hours later doesn't seem noteworthy or worth posting. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In all elections, the results are published on ITN, not the holding of the same. You can wait. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've presented an argument above against a past precedent that I believe is not serving readers. There are presumably some valid arguments to be made in its defense, but those should be presented here, rather than just dismissing the nom "because that's the way it is". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You must normalize American elections. In the discussion you mentioned, the users, I imagine most of them must be American, they make that very clear: as blurb must be cited the victory of the candidate, whoever he may be, only this.Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Personally, I support this, thought I think the election for the president should be singled out in the blurb, as that is the election that is in the news across the world, not some local elections or a referendum about marijuana — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaOneLove (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, it's likely going to be a huge news story with Trump having recruited an army of lawyers to try to stop mail-in ballots from being counted after election day. Count Iblis (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the results come in. There's no need to go against what used to be a long-standing practice in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely no need to do this, just because it's the US elections. If we do it for this one, we should do it for every general election around the world.  Pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But we aren't doing this just because it is the US elections. This could be the most important US election in 60 years, it is in a UNSC Permanent Member, it is in the middle of a pandemic, Trump keeps on babbling about fraud and so on! 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unlike other elections in Western countries, what will make this the most newsworthy will be the disputes about the results. Count Iblis (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait till polls open in Hawaii and Alaska or close in Kentucky  - I am inclined towards opposing the blurb due to tradition (if we can call it that) but I also support it due to the fact that this could be the most important election in 60 years and will be highly contested. So I suppose we could compromise and blurb it when all of America can vote (unless there is some Wikipedia rule against this blurb). *prays that the better candidate (not Trump) wins in a landslide* 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 08:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 7am in Hawaii (when polls open there) would be noon Eastern time or 5pm UTC. The close of polls in Kentucky and Indiana would be 6pm Eastern time or 11pm UTC. The former sounds like an okay enough compromise, but I don't think we should wait for the latter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a 6 hour gap. In that case I also think the former would be best. I'm striking out the other proposal. 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal is absurd and a clear example of systemic bias. Chrisclear (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as written. Start a new proposal with a blurb about the record turnout where several states already have received a record number of votes before Election Day. News sources are reporting this will be the highest turnout since 1908. Jehochman Talk 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until polls close and/or the winner becomes obvious; if there's no winner tonight do not blurb it unless something else comes up related to it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having watched the Bolivian election sit here completely ignored and untouched for 22 hours after it was ready a couple of weeks ago, all this nomination achieves is proving the insane US bias of this place. Please kill and delete this nomination immediately to give the US some hope of retaining any respect at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can we please stop calling this good faith proposal names like "absurd"? I wouldn't want to participate here if my ideas were called that. American here and I would actually agree only the results (or any dispute that may come up) should be posted, but this is a good faith proposal with no reason not to discuss it and no reason to suppress or delete it just because it's related to the United States. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, this is giving the US Election prominence over normal procedures for elections. But there is vast global interest in the US general election that exceeds that in all other elections. I expect a lot of readers worldwide will come to the main page hoping to navigate to information about this election, and currently there is no link for these readers. I think using "Ongoing" would be a better strategy though. --LukeSurlt c 11:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I accept that American elections have a different status but I do not think this is helpful. The real question here is not whether the election is important but whether the actual voting itself is. Even in the US, the actual date of the election has become less significant this year. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong wait for results, like every other election. Furthermore, the article needs to have referenced prose describing the result. We don't post elections while they're ongoing, or when the polls close - what matters is when reliable sources call the result, and updating the article. It's fine to post the House and/or Senate results if those are available before the President, then update the blurb later. But simply saying that there is an election going on isn't blurb-worthy. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Until we find out which of the two old guys (or Kanye) wins. Gex4pls (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until we either have results or have (god forbid) some sort of highly unusual development. If Trump declares victory based on election night data and starts making accusations of massive mail-in voter fraud or something, we should post. If the final count is delayed so long the Proud Boys and Antifa start shooting one another, we should post. But simply that it's election day, no. I don't think this is an absurd proposal. I just think we need to treat this like any other election until (god forbid) it's not. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This should be closed for now. Wait until we have (at least some) results.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there is a clear result, as we do in other countries. Sheila1988 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per 331Dot's assessment in the Courtesy Link provided above JW 1961   Talk  13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until gloomsday or bloomsday dawns. There's the usual avalanche of pointless prehash stories out there that are mostly space-fillers. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose premature nomination. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's important for U.S. to be aware of the impact of systemic bias and how it can color perceptions. This is probably the biggest national story in the country, yes. But how do international audiences feel? This does not warrant an early posting. Publish it when the final results are out.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural Comment Please don't re-open this mess tonight, just start a new nom with a clean slate. There is a discussion at WT:ITN if you want to speculate about possible outcomes and how to handle them. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. This was the discussion for posting the article now, while voting is still underway. We should reconvene in a new nomination after the polls have closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear,    with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * AKA 'electile dysfunction.' – Sca (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should've been a clear SNOW close. Anyway, a new discussion is better which is going to focus on the actual results and condition of the article than whether to post it or not. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Question on Congressional elections Is that going to be posted independently of the presidential election? None of the articles for those are acceptable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. We have historically posted midterm elections, and included Congressional results in presidential election years. There are just as many UK general elections as US ones since 2015. What I'm asking if we'd be posting Congressional elections independently of the presidential election as the latter may take some time to be decided. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So should the blurb be something like In the 2020 United States elections, Joe Biden/Donald Trump wins the presidency while the Democrats hold the House and the Democrats/Republicans gain/hold the Senate? (Of course if the Democrats get both chambers, that sentence can be condensed.) <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those were the suggestions from 2016, just that I don't know if those where the blurbs that were posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We may not want to post the Senate yet, as the makeup is still unclear(albeit it likely to stay GOP); the Senate could come down to a January 5th runoff in Georgia(the Warnock/Loeffler race). The House will stay Democratic(though with a smaller majority). 331dot (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy

 * Support Well referenced and large enough article. Interesting person as well. KittenKlub (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is currently listed on 6 November. Shouldn't this be an earlier date, Reddy died on 1 November and I can see it was reported as early as 2 November? - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely right. In fact, I edited the talk page on 2 November, and my first impression was that the article looks a lot better now. KittenKlub (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , -- thanks folks. If someone else can get a pair of eyes on this one -- this article should hopefully make it to homepage / RD before the carousel moves past. Ktin (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Sessions

 * Support Looks well referenced. Good to go?  Jheald (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Appearance tables need to be sourced as per any other actor. --M asem (t) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely unsourced filmography. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 00:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan

 * Support Nicely sourced little article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene requirements and should be good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks to be all sourced. Good length. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good number of sources, well written. SoloGaming (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! For those interested, here's a clip of what must have been his last performance. Leaves you teary-eyed at ~1:35 into the video. Ktin (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That was nice. Thank you.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack

 * Support Like the story below, this one is well referenced, though short it is well above stub level and does appear to faithful cover what is known at this point. News sources are covering the story.  I see no reason to hold it off the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This seems to be fully "complete" (the full extent of what happened is known), and while still short, seems sourced and ready to go in contrast to the lingering issues over the Vienna attack at the time I'm writing this. --M asem (t) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a bit on the short side but manageable. Would benefit from noting what happened to the attackers (were they killed etc), but this is about as good as it gets for a Kabul terrorist attack. Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentions in the lead "The three gunmen were later killed during a fight with security forces". --M asem (t) 00:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is sufficient to post Sherenk1 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose People are killed in Afghanistan all the time. Just look at the Portal/Current Events for the last few days This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if article can be extended further (if there is more coverage) - this is a major terrorist attack in a university (which most of us would expect to be safer). 45.251.33.20 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Attribution is murky. Infobox states clearly that this was a specific branch of ISIS. Article states that, an NGO based in Maryland states that, it was ISIS generally. Goes on to say that a member of Afghan government attributes it to the Taliban. Both ISIS and Taliban are pretty vocal with their claims. Seems odd we have to rely on second or third parties to get a claim of responsibility.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Large loss of life in what, the 5th(?) terrorist attack in the past month. Gex4pls (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all over the news. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and I agree wholeheartedly with the nom. Christ almighty. --WaltCip- (talk)  14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. Jehochman Talk 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Very tragic and significant attack on an educational institution. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment There has been a red copyvio tag on Kabul University for the last 24 hours or so. This should be resolved by an admin as soon as possible since it's currently linked on the main page via this ITN. — MarkH21talk 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I fixed it, or so I think.  Please check. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I suppose since it seems that has been there since 2012 that a simple revdel can't be simply done. It could need a listing at WP:CB? — MarkH21talk 21:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the simple fix is okay in this situation. Revdel would be overkill. Jehochman Talk 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks

 * Overwhelming support another anti-Semitic attack, most likely another Islamist attack in Europe. Since we didn't post the previous attacks from the past month, we have to post this one. CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Austria’s Jewish community said on Twitter that it was not clear whether the synagogue or adjoining offices were targets of the shooting as they were closed at the time of the incident per Al Jazeera. So, we're not here to presume any anti-Semitic or Islamist motive. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * >Per Aljazeera Yeah, into the trash goes your source. Read up on the Qatari support of Wahhabist movements 1980s-2010s. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Avoid that tone. Here's a BBC coverage quoting the same guy. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read most the al jazeera wiki page and agree with Solavirum that al jazeera is mostly fine as a source, not as reliable if they are talking about qatari issues however--Annemaricole (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * did the photoshop in the ANTIFA guy? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment also added another blurb.
 * Support, an important developement. —-(nob) (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait I am not seeing anywhere in sources or in the article where this is being called as an Islamist attack (though that it was centered on the Jewish synagogue is the clear leap of logic for the claim). Details are still developing, and while even if it is not terror related, this is still probably worthy of being posted as an ITN story. --M asem (t) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Stub. There are six references used that have the word "synagogue" in their titles, but the article does not yet contain the word. It needs to be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Yep, big news. Another islamist (?) attack in Europe This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A terrorist attack with multiple fatalities is the sort of news story that gets a lot of international coverage and interest. Llewee (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m going to post this. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you do that without consensus? Are you "supervoting" because you're an admin?  Genuine question. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time that you posted it, the article was claiming that there were eight deaths and a suicide bombing. With all due respect, wtf were you thinking? Thank goodness it was pulled. Mlb96 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we don't even have an article for the brutal stabbing of two Muslim women at the Eiffel tower by demented rightists, not sure why this is important. Seems Europe has discovered racism, and the violence has become routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is true, i will back you in creating an article--Annemaricole (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Developing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Too late, routine violence in Europe posted in 90 minutes. I'm sure no one will be frothing at the mouth shrieking about "bias" or demeaning a "minimum wait" either - that honor is reserved for other countries. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I vehemently disagree with the premature posting by an American admin. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (and I guess you mean "demanding" rather than "demeaning", right? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC))
 * What the does my nationality have to do with it. Your comment is repulsive. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was on my phone. Nice catch and thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, what was repulsive was the supervote and abuse of the main page, posting erroneous material with no consensus to do so. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am pulling this for the time being, the sources are too conflicting to have an accurate blurb. Wait an hour or so until things get clear. --Tone 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest terror attack in europe since 2015. Gex4pls (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Has fatalities. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Terror-related and fatalities. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose BBC is currently reporting one confirmed death as is the article. WAIT.  That this was posted nearly an hour ago is absolutely appalling.  Thank goodness someone saw sense and pulled it until we have the facts.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but wait. Tone was correct to pull since the information from various sources at the moment is too confusing and contradictory, and it's not even entirely clear if the event itself has concluded or is still in progress. Hopefully in a few hours a more definitive picture will emerge. However, this was a major coordinated pre-planned terrorist attack involving multiple perpetrators, multiple locations and multiple fatalities. Even from what's known already, definitely blurb worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support major attack under large news coverage. Vienna isn't exactly known for its terrorist attacks so this is probably more covered. However if confirmed reports come in that only 1 was killed then it's best to not post. Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you mean wait then? I.e. don't post this until we have the facts established? , there you go. That's what we do at ITN.  Wait until the facts are established before super-voting and posting fake news.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not confirmed as a terrorist attak as of the time of this post, look at the sources on the article!
 * Support Article is short, but sufficiently detailed and well referenced. Story is being covered by news sources.  Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Two people dead in something that may be a terrorist attack?  There's no there in the confirmed information. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs, TRM and PowerEnWiki. It got a few headlines, and people are quick to cry "terrorism" when an attack fits a particular profile, but overall it's unclear if this is of any lasting impact right now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose another mostly peaceful terrorist attack. Water is wet. It's like the 5th one in 2 weeks in Europe, better suited for ongoing. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Infobox casualties are unacceptably vague (4+/15+). There's either RS support for these numbers, in which case they can be reported precisely, or they're the result of WP:OR, in which case they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Article is about the same quality as the one above. I am immediately suspicious of the initial !votes describing this as "the biggest attack since 2015" (it's not) and the immediate Anti-semitic/Islamist bickering (apparently kicked off by a Tweet). Europe's now had 4 (own recollection) terrorist attacks in the last few weeks, with casualties ranging from 0-3. This is, sadly, part and parcel of that part of the world right now. I'm completely unmoved by arguments that this should be posted for the strict rationale that they are "anti-semitic". I notice that no one describes the beheading of Paty as "anti-education" or the killing of an Orthodox priest as "Hellenophobic".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is well referenced to reliable sources. More accurate information has come out and the incident is being covered in a major way internationally. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Buidhe above. Yakikaki (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment a common theme in Europe at this time, with a "terror attack" taking place roughly every other day or so. Please don't use the main page as a personal scratchpad: it's not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume double voting is not allowed? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why the above is a "comment". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Whatever the exact nature of the event and the fatalities, this is clearly a hugely significant event and should merit immediate posting. It is not a question, as TRM states, of terrorism being "a common theme in Europe". This is an Austrian matter, and clearly exceptional. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if terrorism is such a big problem in Austria perhaps you would care to populate Category:Terrorist incidents in Austria. At the moment, it includes only one other incident after 1985 and that was more than a decade ago. I think "clearly" is quite reasonably used in this context, no? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. – Sca (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Major attack on a major city, article passes quality standards. -- P-K3 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your definition of major? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Article is fully referenced and isn't a stub. Major attack that is tragically happening more and more in Europe. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM. Another apparent 'Islamo-fascist' crime – indiscriminately savage but random and lacking broader significance. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support terrorist attacks are not common in Austria as some of the dishearteningly apathetic opposers are implying - this is not just "another occurrence". <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They are now extremely common in Europe generally, and as much as there haven't been so many in Austria, the lasting significance and impact of this is limited. Also, posting this when we decline to post shootings with vastly more deaths in other parts of the world reeks of double standards. This was a big story yesterday, but it is already relegated to a minor story on the front pages of UK news sites and we are not a news ticker. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Current reports indicate that this was a lone gunman. Summarizing the above, it seems like there is not consensus (based on what is known now) to post this.  We have a main page item about a shooting with 22 fatalities and 22 injuries.  Does it make sense to close this?  Jehochman Talk 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Hyped. Suggest close. Marked Needs attn. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * At 1,900 words of futile blather, it does need attn. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * obviously I'm biased, because I ¡voted to Oppose this item, but if you feel there's no consensus then going ahead and closing seems sensible. As Sca says, the discussion is going around in circles at this point. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not need attention, as the article is sourced and not a stub, though this discussion is getting boring and futile. Close if you want. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dan Kohn

 * Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks okay. Ҥ (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, his work is what made him notable (WP:N). And I have added his birthplace and family info.  Joofjoof (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I see IP Editor's point. However, there have been edits made by a few folks including and . Nothing so egregious that should prevent this article from going to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and struct previous oppose. Biographical details are now suitable for RD.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is OK, unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is good for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nikki McKibbin

 * Oppose for now. Too much uncited info including personal medical details - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose also, while the entire "American Idol" and "Discography" sections are unreferenced (along with 3 or 4 paragraphs of "Post-Idol career") JW 1961   Talk  13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above and the lead needs an overhaul. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Fisk

 * Support Well referenced article, looks to be ready for RD JW 1961   Talk  22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment : not ready. The Irish Times subhead describes Fisk as "highly regarded and controversial". If our article is doing its job, a reader ought to be able to understand why the IT led its subhead with those words.  At the moment, they don't get that from the article. Why was Fisk "controversial"? If we're going to link the article from the front page, it needs to present a full picture of its subject, and it needs to examine this, with balance and NPOV, even though that may be distasteful.  If an article has a deliberate blind spot, or we run away from grasping the nettle, then it is not good enough to be linked from the front page.  To be sure, part of what made Fisk "controversial" was that his reporting was often relentlessly critical of U.S., British, and Israeli policies and actions.  But people who have expressed reservations about his journalism go beyond just the conservatives and pro-Israel columnists who coined the term "fisking" (former article) -- eg fellow Independent journalist Hugh Pope, as well as others critical of his more recent reporting of Syria.  It's difficult to know how to weigh the criticisms, some of which certainly are politically motivated. (Though it may get easier as obituaries start to appear in the following days).  But the article needs to do a better job of contextualising why Fisk became so "marmite". IMO therefore, in its current form, the article is not ready.  Our reputation is not served if we promote an article that sidesteps why its subject has been presented (at least by some) as "controversial", or could be accused of whitewashing. Jheald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine to me at a first glance, Jheald does raise some points that need to be looked into but I don't think they are significant enough to stop this from going to RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The points Jheald raises should be looked at first. I'm not expecting a "controversy" section, that's generally not advisible, but some mention of this is required. For example, the article is almost entirely silent on his alleged bias against the US and Israel, yet all the obituaries I've seen so far highlight this aspect of his career. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support We're not doing a GA review here. I think it's clear from reading the article why he was controversial, and everything is sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well written and referenced. SoloGaming (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it stands, per Jheald. Fisk certainly needs a "controversies" section to avoid being WP:POV ourselves. The NYT described him as "one of the most controversial journalists of the age", and he was banned from entering the US at one point. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well written and referenced, no reason to delay for the haters to write a hate section. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just following the guidelines you can do whatever you want, I suppose. It's strange to me that this still isn't posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per P-K3 and LaserLegs. - AnthonyIreland (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The sources of controversy are relayed in the body of the article. Links therein (eg. Douma chemical attack) describe the actual controversies of those subjects. There is an outlink to "fisking" at Wikitionary, which notes only that it's a term from "the blogosphere". Not quite the level of notability that should hold this article up. Otherwise a well written and structured BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Brigade Piron, they said it better than I could. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per P-K3. Legendary journalist. I'm surprised this isn't posted already.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per P-K3. NB article used to have a Criticism section, but it was rolled into a new Syrian Civil War section in this edit early this year (plus see subsequent series of edits for expansion of Syrian Civil War section). Rwendland (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article at present has an orange tag related to above concerns.  Spencer T• C 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's how you keep an RD article off the main page it seems. No one can point to an actual guideline requiring a "controversy" section but we sure are keeping the article off the MP. Sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is simply wrong. If anything, Controversies are to be avoided in BLPs, and the "controversies" that this person was involved in happened to resolve in his favor after time. What is to be written? "Fisk was shamed and ridiculed for things that eventually turned out to be true?" WTF?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed that silly tag. A "controversies" section in a BLP is the opposite of WP:BLPBALANCE. Each relevant section covers what made Fisk controversial. If it's not stale, this needs to go up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * if you bothered to read the talk page comments and participating in the discussion before unilaterally removing a cleanup template, then you would know that nobody is asking for a "controversies" section. Just some coverage in the existing sections of an important aspect of Fisk's life and career, with *every* obituary about him has mentioned prominently. The article is incomplete without that information, and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the article is orange tagged, and the issues raised both here and on the talk page have not yet been addressed. Please remove, as it is ineligible for ITN until this is resolved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A little disingenuous to omit that you added the orange tag after posting. Controversies are referred to in the article, such as the Syria section. But please pull it if you believe it’s the best course of action.  Stephen 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I added the orange tag yesterday, and it was removed unilaterally this morning with no response to the talk page comments or attempt to address the issues raised so I have reinstated it. Jheald has given a detailed description of the details that are missing, and it's not about the Syria thing, it's his views on the government policies of the US and Israel, and how these coloured his journalism. The article omits any mention of this at all, other than a vague "he was controversial" note towards the top. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we should imply that he was wrong in his views, far from it - on a personal level I think what he said made a lot of sense. But my personal opinion and those of other editors aren't what counts. For NPOV we have to represent the sources, which highlight this aspect prominently, and the fact that his views are disputed. Otherwise the article is simply incomplete. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I've now added some detail on the controversy myself, in the "Views" section so I've now removed the tag again. I guess from my point of view this now makes it OK, but will also see what others say. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)