Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2016

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.

RD: Tina Anselmi

 * Comment. There's a bit of a gap between 1987 and 2003. It would be useful to have page numbers for refs 6 and 7 -- citing an entire book for precise claims of that nature isn't very useful. Also the two references to Goodreads need replacing. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Church of the Holy Sepulchre excavations

 * Support this is highly relevant to all Abrahamic religions. Nergaal (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have a citation that says that limestone is required for the walls of the cave? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article has a few missing cites, but nothing so contentious as to keep this off the main page. Suggest linking to section titled "later work" so that readers can find the information on the recent excavation; the article is quite long and thus linking to the specific section is a good idea.  -- Jayron 32 13:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb, open to trim. Brandmeistertalk  13:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, purely on article quality. Too many gaps in referencing. I have added multiple CN tags. Will happily reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose 35 [citation needed] tags? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Being a religious concern and reverence matter, bearing history since AD just after BC "CN Tags" hold no valid reason to drop it from Main Page.   Nannadeem (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments - Page nomination and cn tags date amazed me. Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be amazed at. I added most of them when I was reviewing the article as a candidate for ITN. Article quality is a major criteria when considering linking to the main page. And frankly the referencing is not acceptable. The article has a strong whiff of WP:OR hanging over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is a fantasy; the identity of supposed crypt is the invention of a politician by the name of Constantine. There is no valid historicity. Also, note that the evacuations confirm something that has been known for hundreds of years and which nobody denies; the type of rock. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather close to an "I don't like it" vote. If you believe the article or parts of it, are factually false you should challenge it with reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who somehow thinks that this hyped up crap about the nonevent of confirming that cave is made of rock is remotely interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment Oppose – So far I haven't seen anything indicating that they've found anything of significance. Sca (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely, they wouldn't find bones, because Jesus resurrected and ascended, you know... Brandmeistertalk  22:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought they might find a faded invoice for so many amphorae of water turned into wine – oops, I mean grape juice! Sca (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per Sca. I don't see why this is a big deal. The article says a "layer of fill material" was found, as well as the "original limestone burial bed", which suggests that the tomb's location has not changed over time. If THAT is the major discovery here, then I don't see it as a big deal. The work is too preliminary. If there were evidence that this is Jesus's tomb for example, or some other groundbreaking find, then that would be worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon. This doesn't look like anything really groundbreaking yet. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. Also, since when do we post things related to the deaths of fictional characters? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the "fictional characters", read Jesus and historicity of Jesus. Brandmeistertalk  11:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - One doesn't have to think of Jesus as a fictional character to recognise that (a) the location of the tomb is almost certainly a pious fraud from the reign of Constantine and (b) that this excavation (actually an overdue bit of routine maintenance) has added nothing to the sum of human knowledge. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

 * Support ongoing – Significant story about environment, indigenous rights and ethnic tensions in US. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for ongoing coverage is regular, article is receiving regular updates. Looks good to me.  -- Jayron 32 13:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This has been much "In the News" over here and the article is in good shape with above average referencing. Even the lead is decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd prefer to put up a blurb first, if anyone would care to propose one? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a minor news story in the US, with 140 arrests for trespass (which might have been the time to post, but it's stale). The article is written entirely from the anti-pipeline POV.  Ongoing is hardly justified, since it is based entirely on WP:CRYSTAL. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the article notes, there was limited mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States until recently and even lately, that coverage is limited, as exemplified by the article which appears to suggest that nothing notable has happened for at least three or four days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving to Oppose per Medias. After reading his Oppose rational I took another look at the article. While I do think that this is a significant news item I have to agree that the article is woefully unbalanced. There is virtually no discussion of the "other side's" position. It's bad enough that I think I am gong to throw up a maintenance tag. This needs to be fixed before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ongoing in U.S. media and somewhat elsewhere, but agree with μηδείς that the tone of article seems quite one-sided. And, at 5,400 words, it's overlong in relation to the import of the topic. Sca (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A regional issue with limited coverage, that isn't having incremental updates to its article. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not right to call it a "regional issue" considering the United Nations is now involved. (Not to mention the whole "don't oppose a story for only applying to one region" rule). This is complicated because of the sovereign nation within a sovereign nation issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The UN has no say in US domestic issues. The rule says nothing about opposing a regional issue- it refers to opposing an issue because it does or does not relate to a particular nation- but I am much more concerned about the coverage(though admittedly this is starting to appear elsewhere) and the updates. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That story also cites "army tanks" being involved but the US Army is barred by law from domestic law enforcement. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone is interested I have opened a discussion on the NPOV issues with the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support this if the NPOV tag is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron and Jenda. Jus  da  fax   20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Meddies and TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - News of global interest which is regularly covered in mainstream press (worldwide). The article is also updated regularly. Note that the interest in the media and the updates to the article are occurring despite the fact that the protests have been going on for some months now. Also, looks like NPOV tag has now been resolved. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then provide some examples of ongoing worldwide reporting in notable sources, Kiwi128. Just asserting this without current citations is not helpful. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, a UK-based new source has reported on this quite a lot: see this, this, and this. Radio New Zealand: this, this, this.  Associated Press, syndicated worldwide: this.  BBC, UK-based: this.  Al Jazeera English, broadcast worldwide: this.  Many other examples exist. Regards, Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Extensive international media coverage and addressed by President Obama.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Natalie Babbitt

 * Support Short but well sourced. --M ASEM (t) 13:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid with no significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see where the bibliography has inline citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the bibliography citations - added citations and moved unverified works to the talk page. Therefore marking as ready. MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - solid, and well sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Raoul Wallenberg declared dead

 * Oppose This is a purely pro-forma confirmation of what is already common knowledge. In short, it is not really news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There needs to be a better update on the article, as to establish that the current 1952 death date is what is being stamped here and not an assured date of death. Also, and I presently have no opinion on this, but this appears to be simply a formality issued by the Swedish Tax Authority that as, after issuing a public request for Wallenberg to show himself to them to affirm he was still alive this year, that he didn't show up so was declared dead due to that. At this point, I don't think anyone had expected him to actually be living (he would have been 104), but more that because accounts from the Soviets were poor that there was no good closure on when he actually died, and this event here is simply to affix a date for accounting purposes. This is the part that I don't know if I'm committed on if we should highlight or not. --M ASEM (t) 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose A similar story was posted in February this year, then pulled . I don't see sufficient difference to post this. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support There seems to be a bit of a slow-down on updates over the last few days and this is a GA too, so it would be nice to promote that at least. And I find the whole mystery about his death quite interesting.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support we have already posted death of Nicholas Winton. Wallenberg is also one of most prominent victim of communism. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Winton's death was posted as an actual news item. This is not news in any sense of the term. The world has long known what happened to Wallenberg. If we had just learned of his death I'd support a blurb for him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support good quality article and interesting. I understand that this won't pique the interest of many of our non-European readers, but nevertheless it's a good shout for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Significant historical event illustrating Soviet mendacity. Sca (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is much more of a DYK type story, although it might be hard to meet the update criteria. Otherwise it's really (no disrespect) another "Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead" story. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Lebanese presidential election, 2014–2016

 * Highly support inclusion of this election event. A big development after 29 months of deadlock and vacancy in the position of the Lebanese presidency after President Michel Suleiman's departure as president at the end of his term in May 2014. werldwayd (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As elections for head of state are on the recurring items list, support on the merits is not necessary; all that is required is a quality update to the article and agreement on a blurb for this to be posted. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also greatly improved the intro section of President Michel Aoun article and the related section "Election as president" and "Political strategy" on the same page in expectation of it being one of the links used in the news item werldwayd (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Too many gaps in referencing. Additionally both of the secondary articles are in poor shape. Parliament of Lebanon is almost completely unsourced and I would oppose it even as a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an alternative blurb that do not link to Parliament of Lebanon. HaEr48 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose appears to be double-orange-tagged, although I can only see three inline cn so perhaps it's not all that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[Removed] Aleppo offensive
Could the current link be either removed (or replaced with Aleppo offensive (October 2016))? Because the government offensive stalled like two weeks ago, and new info on the next piece of that years-long battle now go into a new article. Narayanese (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the current link for now, as it seems to be no longer being updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

LoL Worlds finals

 * Oppose. I don't think this is an event that attracts broad interest. There are also substantial portions of the article that need work. The rosters and results tables, for example, are almost entirely unsourced. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose primarily on article quality. There is virtually no narrative or text below the lead and referencing is unacceptable. I am Neutral as to the merits of the nomination. It might be an interesting alternative to our usual fair but as Notecardforfree observed, it's not clear what level of interest there is for this. In any event the article does not currently meet our standards and will require work before it could be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality has been greatly improved. While I am not completely sold on this event's ITN worthiness I am going to defer to other editors judgements here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We posted The International 2016 back in August, which had a larger prize pool but was a less popular game. Far as I remember, some people complained after it was posted. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. In the past 2 years 20M people watched the final live, so this IS of wide interest, but the article quality is shit. Nergaal (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm still none the wiser what this event is. Is it sport? Something else? It's far from clear from the article. And, of course, the "world's most popular game" is cricket.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as Lugnuts, although a billion or two soccer fans may disagree on what the world's most popular game is. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - E-sports will never, ever be, and never should be, on the same level of coverage as regular sports. Sitting at a computer desk and clicking is not a sport.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose simply due to the lack of prose in the article. We're an encyclopedia: there's no reason for us to only give tables of data. ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – the article has been adequately improved. ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only. I'm sympathetic to posting any recent event which has a rock solid, high quality article to post.  We don't have that here.  -- Jayron 32 13:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Flip vote to Support Article quality is much improved and the detailed prose is a good model for writing about competitions of any sort. -- Jayron 32 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose similar to others, because of article quality. See The International 6 for example. Even though it does contain some tables, it is of great quality and also contains a lot of written text. As a note to, that's your opinion. However, it is fact that eSports are a sport. Example is that players receive P-1 visa if there is a tournament inside the U.S. Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment when the TI6 article was nominated for ITN, people initially opposed because of article quality similar to what we have here. This started an effort to improve the article to make it ITN worthy. maybe someone can do the same thing here?2620:101:F000:700:9D54:C64D:FE2D:1D5F (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record some significant work is being done on the target article which is already much improved. Given that most of the Oppose votes were based primarily on article quality, we may have to re-open this discussion in the near future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the article has been improved quite a bit. We posted the DotA2 event but according to Forbes "Monstrous Viewership Numbers Show 'League of Legends' Is Still eSports King". The event got 27M viewers in 2014, 34M in 2015, and probably more now. That is more than the NBA final. Nergaal (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When this event was proposed in 2014 it was rejected because it had no separate article. Not sure about 2015. Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Article in much better shape (and frankly worse has been on the front page, yes yes TRM, I know that is no reason to be lax on quality, but still.) Also now covered by the BBC and given the prize money involved, any rejection based on 'not a sport' should be ignored for being obviously ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I think I've adequately expanded the prose and improved the sourcing. League is of obvious large interest given the massive viewership. If we base ITN-worthiness on viewership, and find that League viewership is insufficient, a lot of traditional sporting events, including some North American Big Four sports finals would also not be ITN-eligible. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that the game has 100 million monthly players, somewhere over 5 times the numbers of the next most-popular game. Not many actual sports or other competitions can boast such numbers. Nergaal (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of those could be casual players and not competing on the professional or even semi-professional level as you would see with the traditional sports.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that there are probably less than 100 million casual players of American football or of baseball or of hockey? Meanwhile we have 4+ horseracing events on ITNR, all which have a comparable prize pool. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't feel that this is a sport (it is in the BBC's technology section, not sports). While 100 million people play this game, 99% of them likely(IMO) do not do so competitively/professionally.  Hundreds of millions of people play many sports, but only a small percentage do so at a competitive level.  Many games have championships, why do we post this game? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those numbers are true for most professional "physical" sports too (eg football/soccer, US football, baseball, etc.); only a small percentage of the world's population are involved at a professional level. eSports are treated as sports nowadays (EPSN covers these now), so the question becomes which eSports tourneys are of the top level, which we have to judge by viewership numbers and prize pool. This, alongside the International, are the two big ones that get this type of coverage. We do have to be selective as there are many other eSports tourneys with much smaller prize pools or far lower viewership counts, but this is one that is one of the more significant events. --M ASEM (t) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 331dot, your comment doesn't go into the fact that this tournament was watched by millions: more people show an interest in this event than most other competitions in any given year. The amount of people that actually play the game or whether or not something is a "sport" isn't relevant. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The number of players was cited as an indicator of interest. Whether this is a sport or not is relevant to me, though I appreciate hearing your differing view. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's in the sports section for Sky, and covered by sports websites like ESPN and TSN. If we follow your argument, no sport would ever get posted because all sports feature millions of players of which something close to 1% play at a competitive level. Arguably, top-level professional competition is broader in esports, because many events have open qualifiers (eg. CounterStrike: Global Offensive, Starcraft II) where anyone signing up can play at the same events as top professionals. In terms of video games watched/played, not posting this is the equivalent of not posting the FIFA World Cup because there are many sporting championships out there. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't play football, but I follow the New England Patriots. Do many non-LoL players follow this game's tournaments or championship? 331dot (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you define non-LoL player. If it's defined as anyone who's ever played any amount of LoL at anytime, probably not (i.e. the equivalent of "have you ever at anytime in your life thrown a football?"). But if it's defined as someone who doesn't regularly play the game on a daily basis, then it would be pretty common. It's anecdotal evidence, but I have many friends who play very infrequently or less than they used to, but followed the event. I've only ever played half an hour of LoL, but I found the time to watch a few games and write the prose for the article. In that sense, it's pretty similar to traditional sports. The paucity of information on viewership demographics likely means that not even Riot Games is perfectly able to answer your question. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Prize-wise, since at least 2014 The International offers the largest sums, according to this (for instance, 2016 The International offered roughly four times as much as this LoL Championship). Participants-wise, other tournaments had more players and teams (for instance, Call of Duty XP Championship 2016 had 32 teams and 127 players). Probably since the demise of World Cyber Games there's no single prestigious tournament that combines all popular games, so we need to be cautious when picking a video game tournament for ITN. Brandmeistertalk  21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell me what other event with 20 million viewers we don't post. Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be curious about the answer to that question as well, actually, though not being able to think of any doesn't mean there aren't any... ~ Mable ( chat ) 21:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2014 International was watched by more than 20M (although naturally still small compared to first US presidential debate with its 84 million). Viewership alone is a lopsided criterion. Brandmeistertalk   23:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparing viewership within its own category (e.g. sports and eSports competition) is a perfectly legitimate way to roughly estimate reader interest in topics and the relative importance of related topics. For example, the viewership for all games in the COD championship mentioned by Brandmeister is dwarfed by the viewership for the 2016 LoL world finals series alone. This would indicate that if one of the two were to be chosen for ITN, the latter is much more worthy. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for size of the prize pool, by any objective standard League of Legends Worlds is the biggest and most watched eSports competition out there. For example, the COD Championship in 2016 had 20 million views across all its games, while the 2015 League Worlds had 34 million viewers for the finals alone.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment if we do post this, please post a blurb that matches our house style, i.e. don't include 2016 in the blurb, etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - don't find the oppose rationales convincing. To say that most LoL players don't play competitively is likely true, but the same could be said of any sport. Many games have championships and several are not only posted but also ITNR (e.g. Wimbledon), so why not this? Most non-LoL players are not likely to follow this championship, but the same could also be said of any sport. LoL's major drawback in that sense would be that someone not familiar with the game will find it hard to follow (unlike tennis for example, which is much easier to understand), but still lots of people watched the championship. TI6 did offer a larger prize pool, but this tournament still offered several millions of prize money, which is greater than the championships of many other sports. There are fewer teams and players, but that's only because the tournament is an invitational. Comparatively for example the World Chess Championship is contested between two players only, but it is still ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When evaluating whether an event like this has "broad interest," I also think it's important to consider the extent to which the sport or activity is part of a cultural ethos (or whether the event is widely recognizable to non-participants). Nearly every American knows what the World Series is, even if they don't play or follow baseball. Likewise, nearly every inhabitant of the planet Earth has heard of the FIFA World Cup. For people who don't follow this relatively new game, they will have no clue what "League of Legends" is. It certainly does not have the same cultural significance as other sporting events that are posted here at ITN. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's certainly the major problem with posting this, yes. Games like baseball and tennis are timeless, and the rules barely change over a century of play, but the same cannot be said of LoL. Thirty years down the line I'd be surprised if LoL is even still around ... but right now, with millions of people actively playing this, I still think this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally only post sporting finals or tournaments that are the pinnacle of the professional game. I don't see in this article anything that explains to me why this one is.  It appears to be the finals for just one particular game amongst many that are played professionally.  To give an analogy, it seems to me like posting the result of one Paralympic 100m final, when there are in fact many 100m finals in different categories. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, I'm wondering how this can be the pinnacle of the 'sport' when the tournament is put on by the makers of the game, presumably to generate interest and sales. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow LoL, but there are strong indications this is the pinnacle of this sport. First, it's called the "world championships". Secondly, it is an invitational tournament. Finally, it has a huge prize pool. If there's another LoL tournament with higher overall skill level than this one, it would presumably have a bigger prize pool, but I've seen no sign of this. That the tournament is put on by the makers of the game shouldn't detract from the tournament; besides the makers of the game have a strong incentive to showcase what their game is like when played at the highest level. Banedon (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true if you treat all eSports as one and the same, but then the same could be said of various ball games. Tennis and badminton for example are both ball games, but they are different ball games and the world champion of one cannot win the world championships of the other. In the same way while LoL is by no means the only eSports game out there, a LoL world champion cannot win TI6 (at least not immediately; he or she might be able to after a lot of training). Banedon (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that needs to be discussed - i.e. which, if any, e-sports championships are notable enough to be ITN/R, and which aren't? This is clear for other sports and we don't want to be arguing this sort of thing ad hoc every time someone wins an e-sport tournament. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point only DOTA 2's The International and League of Legend Worlds are worth posting on ITN. Together, they dominate 60% of streaming time on Twitch, are the two most played esports (WoW is huge as a game, but not as an eSport), and also have the biggest prize pools . Counter-Strike:Global Offensive is also up there, but its lack of one single world championship in favour of three-four annual majors like tennis disqualifies it at this point in time.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I have struck my oppose, though I'm not convinced anough to support quite yet. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: 8 supports and nom vs 7 opposes. At least 2 opposes are "I don't like the idea of e-sports", disregarding the idea that the DotA2 equivalent has been posted some months ago. Meanwhile the ITN has been pretty stale for the past few months. Nergaal (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I'm not too convinced that this tournament has gotten so much attention to warrant listing on the current events section. For this matter I would also mostly oppose the Dota 2 The International appearing too, considering it gets less coverage than this. Few major non-gaming outlets, maybe outside Korea, covered the event, and the ones that didn't write about the winners of the tournament, but about the phenomenon of esports itself, with the assumption that most of their readers don't really care who won. As far as I know most major US newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times didn't even mention the event at all in their print editions. There were however a few major news outlet websites that had coverage, such as ESPN, BBC and USA Todays For the Win column. The bottom line is, if the current events section is going to be run like a mainstream newspaper, eSports should be left off. If it's going to be tailored towards Wikipedia's main demographic, the maybe.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ITN regularly posts articles that would not get printed in major Western newspapers (e.g. the Japan baseball blurb right now, changes of heads of states/government of small countries). Insisting on this as a criterion promotes systemic bias. Besides, plenty of major Western non-gaming sites did cover it, from sports outlets such as ESPN, TSN, Sky Sports to Yahoo!, BBC, Forbes (quite extensive coverage by a staff writer), etc. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment last year the final got 34 million viewers. For comparison, the baseball World Series got under 24 million viewers for the last two games. The latter was posted to ITN within hours. Nergaal (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apples to oranges.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * List more than 5 items at ITNR that get 30+ million viewers of the event. Probably not more than 10 of those listed at ITNR have a prize pool of over 5 million. Nergaal (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true, LoL is an eSport played worldwide, Baseball is only of interest to a country no one really cares about ;) Oh and Japan. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Widespread coverage shows notability. Article quality seems fine. shoy (reactions) 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Japan Series

 * Support Article looks solid with no major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Reasonable sufficient prose for each game and no major issues that I can see. --M ASEM (t) 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment house-style alt added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Marking as "Ready." I prefer the alt blurb, but it's not a huge issue. However, I am going to register a weak oppose to adding a picture. My reason being is that the World Series is now underway here in the United States and that will certainly wind up on ITN and I think would be a better candidate for a baseball related picture. This will especially be true in the event that a) the Cubs win, and b) the world does not immediately end. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason we can't have a picture from this up in the interim. In fact, we should treat this just as we would treat the World Series. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just thinking about having back to back baseball related pics on ITN. There is no rule against it, but it might be a bit odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Better to have two back-to-back baseball players than no picture at all, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. No objection to adding image but I can't crop. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Takahito, Prince Mikasa

 * Comment. There's a bit of a gap between the end of WW2 and his recent illness and death (which could do with a severe prune). The referencing seems ok; I assume a lot of the unreferenced material is common knowledge in Japan. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: René Chamussy

 * Weak oppose very brief article. Is there more detail on his impact, accomplishments, achievements which can be added? MurielMary (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article is not the longest I've seen but I do think it meets our standards. No significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but sufficient. There's no particular length requirement, and this is not a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above, could do better, but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Susan Lindquist

 * Support on improvements Her "Research" section needs more inline sources, there's two paragraphs lacking a lot of sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose too many bare URLs in the reference for me, tagged as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I added a couple CN tags but overall I think it meets our standards. The bare refs appear to have been fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are currently nine [citation needed] tags. I'm not sure how anyone could support a BLP with that level of citation requested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * CN tags resolved can be marked as ready now? MurielMary (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Sixth extinction

 * Weak oppose at least until the quality of the Living Planet Index page is upgraded, and the blurb revised. I would also suggest the "Living Planet Index" page (after revisions and cleanup), be used as the target article. Meanwhile, let's eliminate the other link to the Holocene extinction page via the phrase "drop by two-thirds." Isn't that editorializing? The reader can draw his own conclusions (let us hope). Meanwhile, the blurb is misleading because the two-thirds drop will have occurred between 1970 and 2020, specifically the planet's vertebrate population (is my understanding). The year 2020 is used in this particular study "because that was the target set by the United Nations to halt biodiversity loss." Finally, though, I will probably still oppose this because it is my impression that the "Living Planet Index" is some sort of PR & fundraising tool of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Christian Roess (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having an article on this is fine, but we'd be in WP:NOT territory to post it as ITN with it being a hypothesis. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reading above observations and seeing merger tag, it is not proper for ITN. Nannadeem (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TREEHUGGERY.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no WP:TREEHUGGERY, because apparently many love trees and ecology. Brandmeistertalk  10:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above concerns. This is a rather extreme, some might say alarmist prediction that as far as I can tell has not yet been embraced by mainstream science. Beyond which this sounds like a none-too subtle attempt to use ITN for editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Sakharov Prize

 * Comment The nominated articles are fine, but I can't see how we can post this until Lamiya Aji Bashar has an article. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it looks really bad for us to not even have a stub on her. I don't think it necessarily needs to be bold-link standard, but something should be in place. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stubbed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but only Sakharov Prize should be bolded, or only Nadia Murad and Lamiya Aji Bashar if Aji Bashar's article is destubbed. Smurrayinchester 15:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support by endorsing the views of Smurrayinchester  Nannadeem (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, per others. Sca (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, with the bold link on the prize article. Modest Genius talk 11:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted with the prize bolded. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Alberto

 * Oppose for now. Very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] October 2016 Quetta attacks

 * Comment: article has been moved to October 2016 Quetta attacks, I have updated the template. — Yellow <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 08:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait for improvements on the article. Support due to the improvements. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Stub and poorly formatted. — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub article, not comprehensive enough. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this has been greatly improved over the last two days. I suggest the people above, and  take a second look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Quality improved. Still on the brief side, but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T♦ C 15:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Bruce Goodluck

 * Oppose as noted by the nominator, this is a single-paragraph stub right now so not suitable for RD at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the article is significantly expanded. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Unless some kind of improvement is planned by the OP, nominating articles that are this far below our standards is really a waste of everyone's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Jorge Batlle

 * Weak Oppose This is not an impressive article for a former president. It is very thin in content and while most of it is sourced there are only three cited references. The article needs expansion with more references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Bobby Vee
Support: THIRTY-EIGHT Hot 100 chart hits, ten of which reached the Top 20. Six gold singles, yet no RD. Perhaps he should have been a one-hit wonder (among other things) so RD would be acknowledged on day one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.193.80 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the avoidance of doubt, his notability is unquestionable, but the quality of his article certainly is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for the avoidance of doubt, if the article could be sufficiently improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, and for avoiding the natural reflex to insult me or my dead relatives other than through your edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry, Rambler. I never knew you and Bobby were related. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sure you didn't. But in any case I'm certain it wouldn't stop you from making sick jokes about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Dirty COW

 * Oppose It is a threat, but one not yet acted on in any significiant scale (compared to say the Dyn attack). Should this become abused like Heartbeat, then that would be ITN material. --M ASEM (t) 02:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no one ever knew whether Heartbleed was abused at large scale (or at all), because it left no traces. This particular Linux kernel bug allows anyone to gain root access to any Android phone (an exploit that has been demonstrated yesterday), which means more than a billion smartphones worldwide are in danger. --bender235 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not going to vote on this per WP:CIR. My competency with tech pretty much tops out with the electric typewriter. I will however note as a tech illiterate layman, that you could have written the blurb in Koine Greek and it would not have in any way diminished my understanding of what is being communicated. Is this some kind of tech version of mad cow disease? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual code would be like Linear A to me but COW means copy on write (I looked that up). Privilege escalation is where a hacker raises his privilege level as a result of a flaw in the code i.e. bug. i.e. the root privilege, the ability to do about anything you want to the phone: install malicious software, spy on you, make the backgound plaid.. The Linux kernel is the core of the Linux operating system. Operating system is to Windows, Mac, Android and iOS like animal is to dog, except Linux is too arcane for anyone but geeks to use. The kernal of Android is apparently the Linux kernel (I did not know that) so Android phones and the geeks using Linux have had this one weird trick that'd hack their system for 9 years and no one knew until know, or if any did they kept it a secret and maybe hacked your system. Geeks who can actually understand the Linear A look at the code all the time so no one spotting it for 9 years is like what the hell? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Heartbleed explained: . It is not a dirty cow disease that makes hearts bleed. It's Heartbeat that allows you to bleed the next 65,535 bytes (a text character is 1 byte) of computer memory every time you check that the connection's still alive. Including secret contents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the blurb was too technical for the layman. The bug basically allows an unauthorized person to gain superuser ("root") access to any Linux system (which includes Android)—this is called a privilege escalation. What does that mean? Well, the superuser can install and delete applications, or make any change to the system. Simplified, and with an intentionally scary undertone, this means a malicious app can take over your smartphone (if it's an Android), or web server (if it runs Linux). There's an FAQ website that explains more. --bender235 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Jack Chick

 * Support on sourcing improvements As noted in nom, there's a handful of CNs to be filled in to get away from excessing primary sources. --M ASEM (t) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. This man was a very prominent, almost cult like figure in the world of Evangelical Protestantism, anti-Catholic bigotry, and far right politics/fringe conspiracy theories. His passing certainly deserves notice on ITN. Unfortunately the article relies almost exclusively on Chick affiliated sources and fails to adequately reflect the fringe nature of many of his beliefs. The article would require a major overhaul in both content and referencing before it could be posted. I have added tags and left a note on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pete Burns

 * support RD - per notable music contributions. article needs some improvements before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Coverage of the subject is decent but there are serious gaps in referencing. Will happily reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I cleaned up those missing cites and/or got rid of the OR or uncitable wishy-washy stuff. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Short, but decent article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Wel-sourced and reasonably complete even if brief article. --M ASEM (t) 02:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted by NYB. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani

 * Weak Oppose This is not an impressive article for a former King. It is extremely light on detail and referencing leaves much to be desired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is way below par. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit brief and lacks citations for some key statements. MurielMary (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Steve Dillon

 * Conditional Support Not in really bad shape, but there are a few CNs that need addressing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose where is the vast bibliography section inline referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose key statements are uncited e.g. first forays into cartooning. MurielMary (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Perry

 * Conditional Support A few too many gaps in referencing as of right now. Otherwise, while a bit light on coverage it probably meets our standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - a couple of minor referencing gaps outstanding but good enough to post. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ready - sources added. Blythwood (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted --M ASEM (t) 14:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Cubs win the pennant

 * Oppose With the series being Cubs vs Indianas, one of two long-standing drought will be resolved. Better to wait until then (and also going by the logic of not focus on the Cleveland Curse when the Cavs won the NBA finals). --M ASEM (t) 04:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not an encyclopedic topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Oh why not? It seems like a fun item for the main page. Although perhaps better suited to DYK/OTD, I can't see any harm that would come from posting this since it is, in fact, in the news. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 06:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to being unencyclopedic topic, and the fact that ITN will likely publish the World Series article as a story very soon. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This might be the greatest event in all of human history. I ain't afraid of no goat. Go Cubs, go! 50.129.35.130 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Repent! The End is Near! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

AT&T buying Time Warner

 * Support on improvements Both articles need a bit of spit and polish on sourcing but they aren't too far away. Deal is significant. --M ASEM (t) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now purely on article quality. Time Warner is not in horrible condition given its size and can probably be brought up to speed without too much difficulty. AT&T unfortunately, is in rough shape with referencing. There are a lot of major gaps that will need filling before we can post that one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Significant transaction. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I added an altblurb, which uses the neutral word "agrees" instead of the somewhat emotive phrase "reaches a deal". I also added an explanation of who/what the two companies are. Finally I added the precise value of the purchase price, which is available in the AT&T PR. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes that blurb super weighted. I think we can drop "American" and "multinational" and just leave it as "Telecommunications firm" and "media conglomerate". --M ASEM (t) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've been through this before, only to have regulators stop the merger. This can be posted if it is actually consummated. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We have precedent from previous merger/acquisition announcements, where the Wikipedia ITN blurb is customarily published when the merger/acquisition is announced, not when the merger/acquisition is consummated. (Eg. Microsoft and LinkedIn in mid-June). It is similar to the publication of election results - where the announcement of the election winner is more important than the formal change of government. Gfcvoice (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose once again, per Medeis, this is "agrees to do something" rather than "actually does something". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - In the world of business deals, "agreeing to do something" is considered the story, or the interruption of said business deal is also a story, but the actual consummation of said business deal is not a story. We have EONS of precedence to back this up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support We should bold Time_Warner as our main link, the Time Warner article seems better quality. Also, regarding the timing, this should be posted when it is in the news.  The news is the agreement to merge, not the minutiae of the merger itself, which doesn't make the mainstream news and is generally boring stuff hammered out by lawyers and accountants.  The agreement is actually doing it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, Brilliant Does no one remember the $160 Billion merger of Pfizer and Allergan we posted at ITN this April when it was announced, only to see it cancelled off soon after? Who, of the supporters above, advocated we post a correction when that wedding was called off?  I didn't think so.  This is absurd, and against WP:CRYSTAL, and can wait for reality. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither did you. When this one is cancelled, feel free to update an article then suggest it for a blurb.  No one here will stop you from doing so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither did I what? I opposed it, and had no mistake to correct or to apologize to our readers for.  If this actually gets approved, I will support it then. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not nominate an article to ITN when the deal was called off. It's rather presumptuous to demand that other people do work you couldn't be bothered to do yourself.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, when the merger was called off, I did in fact support posting that bit of news because it was so unusual. So you are wrong. I await your prompt apology. Otherwise, shut up. WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good on you, Walt, but was there a thread on this page? If so, I don't remember.  What is the polite response to "shut up" and a demand for an apology?  Not effing likely.  I have long ago learned not to obsess on a thread. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait until the merger is approved by the US government. We have been burned by this before. Approval of a merger this large will also be in the news. Mamyles (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment' This 'issue' has been discussed and it appears that the consensus was that mergers and acquisitions should be posted when they are announced. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_53#Business_deals:_post_them_when_they.27re_announced_or_when_they.27re_signed.3) Gfcvoice (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting to an inconclusive discussion, not an RfC or a policy simply weakens the argument for posting this as a matter of course. Thanks for the link. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! What is a RfC ? Gfcvoice (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's settle this then! Any objections to setting up an RfC on what should be a pissingly simple matter of course? I'll have one up this afternoon.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lady Raine, Countess Spencer

 * Support article is well sourced and fairly comprehensive. MurielMary (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support not a bad article, I made a few tweaks but nothing substantial. Good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Eséka Train Crash

 * Conditional Support Article needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support While somewhat light on details, the accident is very much confirmed in western sources, including issues that may have caused it (the excess passengers). The article is reasonably sourced for what is known at this time, and as Cameroon is not exactly the most connected country in the world, I don't expect we'll be getting full details for several days. (Also it looks like the injured is up to 570 now out of ~1300 on the train). --M ASEM (t) 23:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated per TheSun and . Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is thin, this item is barely in the news, and death toll on it's own notability doesn't make. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My understanding is that ITN candidates "are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose). There is no mention that lives in Cameroon are worth less in ITN currency when compared to lives in other countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Or worth any more. All I said was death toll on it's own notability doesn't make. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Significant train derailment with high death toll. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - significant rail accident, article in good condition with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above, in decent shape now. Brandmeistertalk  08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted revised altblurb.  Spencer T♦ C 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyberattacks

 * Wait a bit for some more information. Leaning towards support oppose as it hasn't been that effective apparently. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose not showing as historically notable at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Definitely disruptive and noteworthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have read one of the sources, the BBC one, that states Massive web attacks briefly knock out top sites, i.e. "briefly". This isn't an encyclopedic article by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - An exceedingly minor inconvenience to active Internet users - not to mention the mostly East Coast centralized attack took place at a time when most of the people in that region are at work.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Until we have an idea whom might have initiated this (whether it was chan-type antics or a serious threat), this is a minor issue. The blurb is also wrong to a degree. The sites aren't offline, just that the DDOS is making it difficult to connect to them if your systems had to look up the hostname. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak support as I've just read how this appeared to have been done and underscores an major security issue with the world of IoT devices (particularly consumer grade ones with crap security). There appears to be a third attack undergoing, and while the attacks are "fast", the subsequent cleanup by Dyn and others takes hours. --M ASEM (t) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: (per note on the merge proposal discussion page) The attack has been called by a few sources unprecedented in size and complexity. There are implications for US national security (giving the timing of the presidential elections), which make this notable in itself. To: WaltCip, this is not a temporary "blimp" in a few websites, it's hours-long disruption of platforms and services used by hundreds of millions of users and companies, including popular payment processors like PayPal, which affect the functioning of a large number of businesses in North America. The second wave of the outage mostly affected Europe and the West Coast, not the East Coast.--DarTar (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Walt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It would have been highly relevant if this had be acted on quickly, but even still, it was a big thing, per DarTar. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As for the past tense, major outages for many of the affected sites are still ongoing on the West Coast as I write, i.e. about 5 hours since the start of the attacks.--DarTar (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, unless there is word of larger international issues involved. I think there might be some demographic bias here. It might be a "big deal" for American internet users, especially on the east coast (I wonder how many editors here fit that demographic set...). But realistically, the UNHCR declaration that Sudanese refugees to the Congo have doubled last month - and that there are now >2.5 million Sudanese diplaced - is a bigger deal.
 * Support This attack is due to a new vulnerability that cannot be easily fixed. Using the newly released Mirai (malware), hackers have been able to infect millions of devices in the US connected to the Internet, things like webcams, toasters, thermostats, refrigerators etc., the so-called Internet of things, creating a huge botnet that is now used for this attack. Count Iblis (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So presumably this is the end of the known universe? I am not belittling you, but since you've told me my toaster is now going to give me shit, not just my kids, I guess the end is nigh?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the huge number of such devices connected to the Internet that lack security, they can easily get infected with malware. Add tot that the fears that Russia wants to derail the US elections, and you get the picture here. Putin has available an army on US soil, your toaster is one of his soldiers. Count Iblis (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just gave my toaster a Purple Heart because I always underestimate how long it takes to make two decent slices of toast. If Putin and the enemy can make my toaster function correctly before making it take over the world, I'd be grateful.  In the meantime, don't use your microwaves, they contain nuclear warheads.... (P.S. This is not a belittling thread, just a bit of a jokey one.)  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - depending on users affected / hits coming to nothing / damage caused. And as of right now it looks like it's significant enough. Not sure to what extent it effects Internet voting in the United States presidential election, 2016. --Fixuture (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would it effect the election? Americans don't vote online. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, Americans don't vote online. Any effects would be more tangential effects - i.e. lack of access to news or statistics, etc. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, overseas and military personnel are eligible to vote online. Broadly, though, no. --M ASEM (t) 02:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support pending update. It's in the news, but the article is a mess. A list of websites is silly, it was essentially all of Dyns customers. Strike that silly list, add some technical details, and sure, post it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Legoless (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The outages were very brief during each attack, each of which lasted less than 2 hours and 15 minutes. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting impact. If something with more of a last impact comes down the road (loads of personal information stolen, substantial impact on foreign affairs, etc.), I would consider that more worthy for ITN.  Spencer T♦ C 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, if and when the article is adequately improved. Most newspaper stories covering this event note that the unusual and relatively novel feature of the attack was that it used, on a vast scale, various small electronic devices connected to the internet, like baby monitors, cameras, routers, etc. As this BBC story quotes Jeff Jarmoc, head of security for global business service Salesforce: "In a relatively short time we've taken a system built to resist destruction by nuclear weapons and made it vulnerable to toasters". That's what makes the story interesting. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The type of malware used is what makes this attack so noteworthy, as well as the number of users affected.  Calidum   ¤   00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

South Sudan

 * Oppose appears to be a very minor increment to the whole issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting a general continuance of violence. A major battle or defeat might be different. If Lihaas thinks this should be Ongoing then they should nominate it as such. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to agree with and : however sad this is, it seems like just another turn of events in an ongoing, very tragic war. I also don't think an "ongoing" post is justified, any more than "Afghan war" or "Iraq War" would be. But, the details in the second article about the explosion of refugees do convince me this is a major event. The UNHCR announced that the number of known Sudanese refugees in the Congo doubled in September, and the number of displaced people now exceeds 2.5 million people. I would support that as a news story: it's a really big deal. Am posting another possible blurb in case others think so too. -Darouet (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If we're looking at the altblurb, Refugees of South Sudan would be a better target article but needs expansion/cleanup.  Spencer T♦ C 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

ICC Withdrawals

 * South Africa too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And Namibia but theyre considering. Burundi have affirmed. dunno why we haven't posted the civil war ongoing there Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on the merits; that said, Burundi has passed a law enabling it to withdraw; they haven't yet actually begun to do so. South Africa has, perhaps the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It's not in bad shape, particularly for such a large article but it has not been updated. Additionally there are a few too many gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that needs to be addressed and removed. On a side note South Africa should be added to the blurb if/when the article is improved sufficiently to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh, I removed that particular criticism section outright that was tagged. Its been tagged since 2013, no substantial argument to keep it was made in the relevant section on talk page, just amendments that didnt really address the basic sourcing issue, and using the heritage foundation (a conservative think tank) as a reliable source for anything involving world politics is just ridiculous. It was only their criticism which would be undue anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nkurunziza for all his lack of legitimacy has signed it (I was gonna nominate it before but waited for this).
 * Anyhoo, I may not be around for awhile to update it and the Libya one below (see top right of my user page) so I hope someone else can cover it.Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose talk about resigning under a cloud!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --SI 18:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you offer a reason for your support? It could help the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I regard this as a globally significant issue, reflected by wide international media coverage.... --SI 15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. 107.77.216.203 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Nintendo Switch

 * Thanks for the nomination, but we don't generally post announcements of product releases, even if they are found in mainstream media. Having read the article I don't think this is radically groundbreaking, just a new way to use existing technology. I do oppose. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait for release, then support. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Junko Tabei

 * Support Seems to be a gap in coverage from 1975-1990, but the article highlights well what she is notable for (being the first female to ascend to the summit of Mount Everest). Referenced. Not sure if the extensive "Further reading" entirely in Japanese is helpful to the article, but probably outside the scope of this nomination page.  Spencer T♦ C 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Brandmeistertalk  21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good to me too. Can we get it posted soon? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a minimum, there's a section written entirely in Japanese. Needs translation into English.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have moved that list of books to the talk page to figure out what to do with it. Without that issue, nom appears to have plenty of support. Marking ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello? Is this thing on?  Has been marked ready for over 12 hours now...  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Simone Schaller

 * Support Article not the longest but covers key areas of subject's life in reasonable detail and is referenced.  Spencer T♦ C 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for RD. Good refernces.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The article really needs some expansion but I think it meets the minimal standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been marked Ready for nearly 24 hours. Is a trustworthy admin available to evaluate the nomination please??!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on sourcing. The "early life" paragraph and second "olympic career" paragraph contain many factual claims but only one citation each (to the same source).  Perhaps that citation is meant to cover every fact in these paragraphs, but it isn't clear from the current presentation and the cited source is unfortunately a dead link so it is impractical to check.  I'm opposed to posting without clearer sourcing for the details of her life and competitive career.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Surprised to see something I threw together seven years ago with minimal access to sources make the front page; I didn't even bother to update after she died, assuming it wasn't worth the effort. Thanks to everyone who helped improve the article. Canadian   Paul  20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Pardons for gay men

 * Oppose bolded article is a stub, and tenses aren't clear if the law has been passed already, been subsumed by other legislation, will be passed? If we had a good, clear, comprehensive article to review, that would be nice.  This is not a good enough article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to full support for the British article, weak to neutral on the German for timing and awkwardness of the blurb to include it. But the article on the Alan Turing Law has MUCH improved, and is easily main page ready now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to skip Germany for now, and renominate when the law passes there (since Germany will also pay €30 million in compensation to victims, it would be good to mention that in the blurb, which isn't possible at present). Smurrayinchester 06:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right about article quality. Have tried to clean up. Smurrayinchester 13:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, minor, symbolic act. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Hollow symbolism.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not for the thousands of people still alive who carry the convictions. Also, in the case of Germany at least, the government will also pay compensation. Smurrayinchester 15:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose for now purely on article quality. The German pardon article has major gaps in referencing. The article on pardons in general is also severely under-sourced to the point where there is an orange tag up (which I did not post for a change) and cannot be linked on the main page in its current condition. That said I do not oppose this nomination on principal. It is much more than a symbolic act. It would have the effect of clearing criminal convictions and police records for many people convicted of offenses no longer considered criminal acts. One wonders how many people in the United States still live with felony criminal records that predate Lawrence v Texas. I recall reading a few years ago that almost none of the states had applied the ruling retroactively and that sodomy convictions still stand. This is a significant event which if the articles can be brought up to scratch should warrant a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get the Paragraph 175 article up to scratch tonight. It's featured in German, so it shouldn't be too hard. The "orange tag" rule only applies to the main items, though - we currently have orange tags in Mosul, King of Thailand and Orbit insertion, but because these aren't bold items, it's acceptable. Smurrayinchester 15:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, Paragraph 175 is cited now. I wish the German Wikipedia was better at inline citations... Smurrayinchester 19:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Referencing on the 175 article, while not ideal, is I think now adequate. While I do not like linking articles with orange tags on the main page, even as secondary links, I appear to be alone in that. I have no other objections to posting this and support the rational for reasons stated above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support assuming both articles are cleaned up. In both cases, the laws in question constitute a significant historic injustice. Germany in particular was the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement, so there's some fairly deep context. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support at least the Turing article variant. Far from a "symbolic act", this is a game-changer for the history of gay men who were persecuted, chemically castrated, incarcerated etc, for no good reason.  Far longer and wider ramifications than yet another Iraqi offensive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I understand it, since homosexuality is no longer penalized in those countries, this pardon is largely retroactive and doesn't affect any existing prison sentence or other form of punishment. But still a significant move in its field. Brandmeistertalk  22:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It affects the criminal and police records of a lot of people, many of whom are very much alive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think those records are still valid due to law changes, so this looks moot. Brandmeistertalk  07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not valid is not the same as not kept. In the UK if you are convicted of a crime it stays on your record unless it is removed (under the disregard process). Even if the criminal act is subsequently decriminalised. (This is particularly noticeable with drugs, due to the changing classification of them over the years) It is not automatic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - seems like something internal to the UK and Germany. Banedon (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." -- KTC (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Oppose per Abductive & WaltClip. Basically the same argument, worded differently. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support article is ok, though some reaction section would be nice, and the story is in the news. Ticks my boxes. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not going to happen in UK. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Shambolic and embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the article. Two slightly different laws with the same effective outcome are under debate. "The government's rival measure, an amendment to the Policing and Crimes Bill announced on Thursday, would grant pardons for those convicted who have since died. Ministers say those who are still alive can go through a "disregard process" to clear their names. The government said it would not support Mr Nicolson's Sexual Offences (Pardons) Bill - which proposes a blanket pardon for the living - because it could lead to some people being cleared of offences that are still crimes." It was already announced that the other Alan Turing law bill (which was a Private Member's Bill, not a government Bill) would not be supported. Smurrayinchester 09:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just horrified by the behaviour of that filibustering politician. And I genuinely mean horrified.  But that aside, are the timescales for the (Pardons) Bill on a par with this?  I.e. should we shut this nomination down and wait for the (Pardons) Bill to be passed into law before renominating?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to agree. Smurrayinchester 13:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --SI 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest close with regret. This is not going to happen in Great Britain and there is a clear lack of consensus in the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider the supposed fact(?) that it's not happening in UK as notable. --SI 18:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. In general we don't post decisions to not do something. And maintaining the status quo is not something we should be cluttering up the main page with. Lastly, were we to post the decision to not go ahead with the pardons I think it would be seen by some, maybe correctly, as a none-too-subtle criticism on our part. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not not happening - what happened is that there were two competing forms (one where the pardoning process would be automatic, proposed by Private Member's Bill, and another - the government supported one - which is an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill 2016 where there would be a Home Office check to ensure that the offence was not still a crime (eg rape or sex with a minor) before granting the pardon). The Private Member's Bill was filibustered, but the government amendment is still current, and the government's position that it would not support the first one was already clear when I proposed this. Smurrayinchester 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The government-supported one would not pardon living people at all. They would need to use the already existing disregard process (which I mentioned previously), which is not automatic and has a number of checks - and from speaking to someone who went through it, a lengthly and time-consuming process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Yvette Chauviré

 * Weak support one cn in there right now, but it looks like she did nothing of note for about the forty-or-so years around writing her autobiography, is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Compared to, say, Darcey Bussell or Margot Fonteyn her article seems too short as France's greatest ballerina. Stephen 10:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there are many worthy, notable people whose articles on WP are too short/poor quality/unreferenced etc etc. That's the way it is unfortunately. Thanks TRM for picking up that uncited statement, have fixed that. And yes she seems to have had a long, quiet retirement from the 1970s until her death. MurielMary (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Article has been expanded from obituaries and is properly cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The article has been expanded with in-line references. The subject is notable and a little 'high culture' wouldn't hurt.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Meets minimum standards, but hopefully posting to RD will lead to continued expansion of subject's article.  Spencer T♦ C 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Bemba conviction

 * Oppose This is small potatoes. The big news was back in March when he was convicted of crimes against humanity for which he was subsequently sentenced to 18 years in prison. That was the time to bring this to ITN. I don't ever recall a conviction for witness tampering being posted on ITN. Additionally the article has not been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree that a conviction by the ICC on anything is "small potatoes". The number of people who have cases before the ICC is very small and they are all related to some sort of war crimes. Perhaps he should have been posted before, but even if he had, I would still support posting this. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support. A conviction by an international war crimes court is notable, in my opinion; this one in particular is as the first ICC conviction for witness tampering/corruption. I would like to see more news sources, though. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Should have been posted for the key crimes.  Spencer T♦ C 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot, and also because sources like Guardian say this is an ICC first. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support per the BBC article, It is the first such corruption trial in the history of the ICC in The Hague. hence its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Shenzhou 11 docking

 * Comment. Support on significance but the target article remains a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose purely on article quality. While decently sourced, both articles are too short to be featured on the main page. Will happily reconsider upon expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blurb is false. ESA (Automated Transfer Vehicle), Japan (H-II Transfer Vehicle) and several private companies have also docked with a space station. Certainly not just USA and USSR/Russia. Smurrayinchester 20:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Third manned vessel docking capable country. So 1966 technology basically. But don't get cocky, China might be first with a human on Mars if the other space programs don't care enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay you're right, the crewed Shenzhou 9 docked with Tiangong 1. This is old news. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A manned orbital flight is ITNR, though we don't typically count shuttle missions to the ISS.  This might be along those lines. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Schiaparelli Mars lander

 * Support after landing. Both articles are in relatively good shape. After the addition of a cited source for the landing this should be postable. Mamyles (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added an alt-blurb which mentions Trace Gas Orbiter - it doesn't start science operations until then, but it enters orbit today and will serve as a communication hub for Schiaparelli (plus, ITN/R says to post when they arrive, not when they start doing science). Smurrayinchester 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb when the official announcement is made and the appropriate updates are added to the articles. Both articles appear to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirmation may have to wait a day if the probe antenna is pointing in the wrong direction after landing. Details on how they are tracking the lander are here. i.e. Failure to detect a touchdown signal today (by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope) doesn't mean it has failed. Signals were detected by the GMRT on the way down - see ESA Twitter feed. The data on the landing from TGO arrives later: "as TGO will be a little busy at the time with its own orbit entry, this data won't be down linked to Earth until sometime later and then processed in the early hours of the morning after landing, on 20 October". 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Actually, got that wrong. Confirmation of success or failure will be in about 1.5 hours after landing from the analysis of the Mars Express data, plus communications from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter around 2 hours after landing. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to dpa, it was scheduled to land at 14:48 – "but scientists may not be able to confirm it for some hours." Sca (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Twitter feed says they are now analysing the Mars Express data. They should have just fitted the probe with a Twitter account... Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support alternate blurb I or II. It's a big deal whenever humans can get a piece of robotics onto another planetary body... and it's nice to actually see some good news once in a while! -Darouet (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Schiaparelli may have come a cropper. Sca (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This was always a distinctly high possibility. I am surprised no-one has tried to rewrite the blurb. ESA didn't declare Beagle 2 lost until over a month after they failed to make contact with that lander (the 'landing' was on 25 December 2003, and it was officially declared lost on 6 February 2004). The ITN item for that spacecraft (21 January 2015) was about the eventual discovery (see archived discussion here). (Couldn't find anything in 2003 as ITN appears to have started in February 2004; is that really true, where is the earlier history?) Clearly the ITN item should now be the arrival of TGO in orbit and the failure to hear from Schiaparelli. I'll try and phrase another alternate blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Added alt blurb 3 and replaced image and tweaked the blurbs accordingly (we really need the ability to propose more than one image). The Schiaparelli image is here. The latest BBC News article says ESA "will hold a press conference at 10:00 local time (09:00 BST; 08:00 GMT) on Thursday." (About three hours from now.) Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt III following the ESA press conference. ESA is working under the assumption that a "soft landing" didn't happen, so we can call Schiaparelli "lost". Smurrayinchester 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted a version of Alt 3. I debolded the mission as three targets is a bit much and it is least well updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zeit says Schiaparelli "considered missing," while Spiegel says it has fallen silent "probably for ever" and calls it "lost" (verschollen). Sca (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Libya

 * Oppose for now. Khalifa al-Ghawil is a stub and both articles have only two identical sentences of coverage for this event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Add to my oppose rational As other editors have noted below, this looks like a fairly minor blip in the sad history of Libya. It has not garnered sufficient attention in the press and is very unlikely to have the significant long term impact to warrant any attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

a new source. You could rewrite the candidate. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now – This looks like just a blip in the Libyan Civil War. Maybe VOA is onto something, but I found no reports of a "coup" among mainstream news sites – and VOA itself calls it "a low-level turf war." Sca (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Support with the condition that our relevant text on the topic, currently found only at Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present), be sufficiently improved is currently inadequate. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Vote updated Darouet (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. We'll see.... Sca (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will create the article about coup. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comment ive created an article but it needs just a little bit more work (or rather oversight) to affirm. I cant exactly follow amalgamation of twisted "government" here. Also I tweaked the bulurb a bit.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sourcing of target article seems quite thin, and penultimate graph rather murky as to outcomes. Sca (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ive added a few sources, including 1 that say it failed, although it is murky as is anything there. We could re-phrase?Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose if nothing else, this was a failed attempt. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * an attempt is important look as turkish attempt on July 2016. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That has seen huge and wide-ranging and ongoing ramifications. Will this?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We posted that when it happened not after the ramfications.Lihaas (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the coup d'état attempt is ongoing since 14 October. It didn't finish again. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Sorry, I meant to be clearer: Turkey is on the brink of joining the EU and is not effectively in a state of war. Libya is an entirely different situation.   By the way, reading the article, it appears that the coup attempt started a few days ago, not yesterday...  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One assumes most mainstream news org's haven't covered this topic because news-gatherers don't see the events presaging significant change. Sca (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually find it very difficult to understand, from the material we've developed so far, what is evening happening. I would strongly recommend that you develop the content we have at Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) so that it's clear:
 * Not only who the generals/leaders are, but which organizations the represent.
 * Which governments in Libya are recognized by which governments externally?
 * Are the different domestic or geographic constituents represented by each party?
 * What are the ramifications of a successful or failed coup?
 * Without this information it's impossible to judge whether this coup is worthy of the news here. More importantly, even if the coup is really important, it's useless to list it here when we have virtually no content on it. -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good questions. Let me attempt an answer
 * Weve got the UN brokered GNA but it was opposed by many from Tobruk incl. Haftar, although he seems more interested to gain territory than fight politically at the moment (oil cooperation alne)
 * the UN brought the agreement, so basically that is internationally recognized now and overpowered the old GNS (I don't have a damn clue what the hell is going on there).
 * See above its harder to know than rocket science ;)
 * More conflict, factionalism, and perpetual war.Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Arab Fall? Sca (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets hope summer comes Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Comment turning out to be a successful coup and a blow to UN efforts.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not reflect your claim. I'm pretty sure this is not going to run at ITN in its current state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not reflect your claim. I'm pretty sure this is not going to run at ITN in its current state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Clyde C. Holloway

 * Oppose Very poor referencing. I have added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose large masses of text unreferenced, OTT behemoth lead, &c &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs to be trimmed and referenced, a lot of irrelevant detail (the hometown of the widow of an election opponent!!). MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did significant trimming on the article, but there is still way more to be done. The article was in terrible shape. Prevan (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Delia Davin

 * Comment. Aside from the problem of being older than the oldest RD still up, it's a little thin and there are a couple of uncited paragraphs. When was it first announced? I'm open to posting things on the date of announcement. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Good work on expansion. The remaining citation needed was in the Guardian obituary. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now per Espresso Addict. Article needs updating/expansion and improved referencing. I have moved it to October 16 after a quick look at Google News failed to show any discussion of her death prior to that date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support looks reasonable enough, I made a few corrections. A cn still remains... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Brics summit

 * Oppose good faith nomination. We don't usually post summit meetings unless something exceptionally significant comes out of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And BRICS doesn't appear to be one of the ITNR summits that we normally would include. If there is a major event/decision that falls out of it, then that could be a story, but not at this point. --M ASEM (t) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline nom per above. This is not ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Brics summits were removed from ITNR in December 2015. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its rmoved? We used to post it in the past.Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of Mosul

 * Wait until they recapture the city. Probably soon. Brandmeistertalk  13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ongoing?Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lihaas that this is a newsworthy event, whether the city is captured soon, or in a month. See my comments below. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait post, ongoing ok. Nergaal (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nergaal or Brandmeister?Lihaas (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to wait and just post this as a blurb once the city is liberated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "... once the city is liberated" - what if ISIL wins the battle? Banedon (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support We can have Mosul offensive as an ongoing event. We really don't know how long it will take.-- M h hossein   talk 19:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support: preparations and discussions in the region and international community have taken place over more than a year, and intensively in the last few months. There are an enormous number of forces involved, and various human rights groups are warning about the potential for a million people being displaced. This event is also central to the story of the conflict with ISIS, which for years has been close to item #1 on the agenda for many countries throughout the Middle East, for most major European powers, and for the US. After the start of the offensive features in the itemized list it could be moved to ongoing. TL:DR: whatever the outcome, this event is of great importance to the Middle East, greater Europe, and the US.-Darouet (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait please. The conflict with ISIL (not ISIS) has been an ongoing series of pushes and pulls with no clear definitive outcome.--WaltCip (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a major Iraqi city with 1-1.5 million people in it: it is certainly not equivalent to other "pushes and pulls." -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait until this is more definitive. Blurb only; as a new article it is hard to judge how much updates it has been receiving or will be receiving based on recent past performance.  I think it's a good article, and I think we could post it based on the merits of the importance of this,  if something comes of this, but I'd prefer to see us be a little more deliberative and let this wait a while to see if there comes a more definitive outcome; also wait for ongoing to see if this becomes a well-maintained and updated article.  If so, that is an option too if it does drag out.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the outcome is important, but the event of this conflict in such a major urban center is highly significant in itself, as it has thrown over a hundred thousand soldiers / militants and over a million civilians into a combat zone. High level international news coverage isn't always a barometer of newsworthiness here (e.g. samsung phone), but it should also be noted how much coverage this is receiving. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Per CNN  reporting Iraqi forces claims heavy losses to ISIS, Kurdish president Masood Barzani also says for a potential success, and in  fear of terrorists attacks by ISIS,  page merits to be placed as an ongoing event  Nannadeem (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. AP story says the "operation is expected to take weeks if not months." Sca (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - what do you think of ' proposal to list as ongoing, as we've done for 2016 Aleppo campaign? -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it could be posted as Ongoing to stay until the city is retaken when it could be swapped to a full blurb. Brandmeistertalk  21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "ongoing," seems premature at this pt., since it's only been going on for one day. Wait. Sca (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If evidence, as opposed to media speculation, starts to suggest that this is going to turn into a major and protracted urban warfare campaign I will consider supporting it for ongoing. For now I am content to wait and see how this plays out over the next few days. There is no rush. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per Darouet. Say the battle is beginning, then roll it over to ongoing when it falls off the template box - similar to how we treat the Olympics. After the battle ends, then we can have another blurb (regardless of who wins). Banedon (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're leaning towards a blurb. The article looks good. Blurb suggestions? --Tone 07:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say something to the tune of "Iraqi government forces, allied militias and the CJTF-OIR launch an operation to retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Banedon (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I almost agree with it, although I would place the link on the operation (so something along the lines of "... launch an offensive to retake the city of Mosul ..."). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb for now; agree with that we move it to ongoing when it falls off the template box. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. The story here is the battle begins. In an ongoing war. No major developments. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, sources suggest it may be weeks or even months before Mosul falls. This is equivalent of D-Day landings in starting the final push towards the end of the war. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kigeli V

 * Support. Looks good to me; article well-referenced and has all of the major details.  Spencer T♦ C 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. I added a few CN tags but not enough to block posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support a lot of stuff sourced to primary sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 UCI Road World Championships

 * Oppose no prose summary of the race itself in the target article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. Article needs some kind of a summary of the 2016 race. Otherwise it looks decent and reasonably well sourced. Also Amalie Dideriksen is a poorly sourced stub and would require improvement before it could be posted on the main page, even as a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry SlugNut but the general consensus these days, as noted above, is to have some kind of prose summary, at the very least for the title-deciding races.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RD/blurb: Arseny Pavlov

 * Hasn't the ceasefire been very tenuous at best? Not sure that warrants a blurb, but the official (assuming quality is OK) will be posted to RD upon an update. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait This seems to be "according to"-type news, and the actual effect on the ceasefire not yet sure. --M ASEM (t) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Still want to stress the only source that seems to be confirming this or used as a source for others is an "according to". Not seeing any confirmation from RSes. --M ASEM (t) 23:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – The 'Donetsk People's Republic' is not recognized  de jure as a country. Sca (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I added a fact tag for a factoid that's easily removed if needed. Act of war blah blah blah crystal ball no blurb here but RD is fine per new ITN/DC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose blurb / Wait on RD for RS confirmation Military person is killed in civil war is not an event warranting a blurb. Beyond which I concur with Sca in his concerns about the wording of the blurb which is likely to be viewed as POV. The DPR is pretty much a Russian puppet state that is not recognized by the international community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the event does bring about a major escalation, in which case the blurb can be re-framed. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many fallen officers and assassinated terrorist in Ukraine lately. What make this fighter so special? --Jenda H. (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He was the head of the rebel army. Anyway, as long as he has a quality article, he can be posted to RD. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose right, this is not going to a blurb, ever, so let's focus on the RD. It's a poor quality RD article, heavily steeped in political bias.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I don't understand the oppose rationales. One of the commanders of an independence movement in one of the world's flashpoints is assassinated: how is that not worth posting? Banedon (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because military people and insurrectionists in civil wars are killed all the time. There is nothing unusual here. And as noted above the article has serious NPOV issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure military people and insurrectionists in an active war are killed all the time, but high-ranking officers seldom die (e.g. Adolf Hitler survived all the way to just before the end of WWII, and so did the Commander-in-Chiefs of all the major powers). Plus Arseny Pavlov did not die in battle, he was assassinated. I don't understand how you say there is "nothing unusual here". NPOV issues are NPOV issues, but that would be "support on improvements", which is not among the rationales given right now for opposing this. Banedon (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know he was Commander-in-Chiefs perhaps it should be mentioned in article. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Another death in the Ukrainian Civil War. Guardian quotes "observers" as saying Pavlov was "killed as result of either an internal feud or Russia removing 'inconvenient' separatist leaders" in the so-called 'Donetsk People's Republic.' Sca (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. So are we back to debating the merits of the person nominated or does that recent RFC still hold? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Anthony Foley

 * Support Article looks solid and well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support by no means the world's greatest and most comprehensive target article but at least all of it appears to be reliably sourced, and no major facts seem to be omitted. This is good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the more shocking rugby related deaths..rugby players rarely die young....article looks good too-- Stemoc 23:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Montenegro election

 * Weak Oppose for now. Needs expansion and improved referencing. None of the tables are sourced including the election results. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no discussion of the result and minimal mention of what is obviously a complex background. References are also needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dennis Byrd

 * Support I added a couple CN tags but overall I think it's in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've resolved them both. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, pro American football player who was able to walk after an injury thought to have paralyzed him for life. Article in similarly good shape. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral three years of Pro football covered in a couple in a sentences doesn't seem comprehensive to me. The rest is satis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a GA nom. Those sentences weren't there before I started working on the article. It is updated with his death and has no glaring omissions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made it clear, numerous times, that I'm not expecting ITN (or DYK) to be a GA nom. Nor am I criticising the work done by anyone thusfar expanding the article.  I'm just surprised that there's nothing to add about his football career more than already exists.  Please note, I didn't even oppose the nomination, I was just concerned with the very brief coverage of three years of his pro career, nothing more.  You've done nothing to assuage that concern, so I'll stay as I am, but that must not impact decisions made by any trustworthy admin who wants to post this.  I'm just not onboard with a "support" when it looks like the article is weak in a large portion of this individual's life.  That is all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll add a little more as I can (I added some on his college career just now), but I think Masem said it best: his career in and of itself wasn't that notable, but his paralysis is the reason I followed him (the Jets are my team, sympathies accepted). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This article has some career highlights listed, including some of his best games. This article has some information not currently in our article.  Here is a video which maybe useful as well.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at those later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a little from the FanSided source, but I don't think the NYDN article or video has anything new worth adding. I'm gonna mark this as ready as it is updated and comprehensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think he had an significant career-setting milestones - the reason he's more notable is the accident that ended the career and what he did with that (eg the book etc.) I think the briefness about three years is about right, as one would otherwise then add career box stats to flesh that out. --M ASEM (t) 18:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and good work on expanding the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. prepares response to Russian cyber attacks

 * Oppose Threats, protests, plans etc. If/when something concrete actually happens we can revisit the topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin, Chuck Todd, host of the “Meet the Press” show on NBC, asked Joe Biden.
 * Reply Consider the SOURCE, the MEDIA where the U.S. chose to release this news, and it's TIMING. Isn't a VP hitting the news talk shows (especial for an NBC EXCLUSIVE) a "heads up" to everyone inside the beltway? This has gone high above the radar.

We are sending a message [to Putin]… We have a capacity to do it, and…

He’ll known it? Todd interfered.

''He’ll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact,'' the US vice president replied.

Rick (talk)
 * Oppose interesting story, especially with the allegations of electoral tampering, but there is no article here. Write one first and try again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Saber-rattling. Also, Biden has been known for putting his foot in his mouth before.-WaltCip (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't even an actual story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this isn't even a remotely accurate statement. More appropriate would be "US government publicly considers cyber attacks against Russia in response to alleged Russian hacks," or something like that. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the "article" is just a stub in very poor condition: almost no information, no background, no range of responses and viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jean Alexander

 * Support - has greatly improved the article today and it is now fit for posting. Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is solid and well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Prentice

 * Weak oppose for now. This is a REALLY good article, but there are a few potentially contentious claims made in the article which beg for sources.  I've tagged those.  If those can be cited or removed, then this would be a no-brainer.  On the whole this is a solid piece we would be proud to put on the main page; but when contentious claims are made, they must be cited.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How long would I have to take a look for sources? Me at work. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "how long"? There isn't a timer running, you don't have a limit after which we'll refuse to let you improve the article.  When you find them, add them!  It's not like if you pass some arbitrary time, you're blocked from improving the article!  There is no deadline.  Do it when you get the chance... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant for it to be posted at RD. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Until it becomes too stale to post? Generally, RD postings stay up about a week, though if you took 6 days to fix it, no one would likely post it.  If you (or someone else) could get this fixed in a day or two it would have a real shot of getting put up quickly.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Flip to strong support One of the better, more comprehensive articles we'll have posted to the main page in this section for a long time. We should be proud to do so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 23:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose along the lines of Jayron. A decent article but as a BLP it needs to have anything vaguely contentious (like several of those clauses currently tagged) inline referenced.  It should be easy to fix for someone who has knowledge of the subject and access to decent sources.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Refs added to address tags. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing improved substantially. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Very well-written article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support There are still a few gaps in referencing but overall I think it passes muster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I addressed your tags. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Well written and updated very nicely reflecting death. - TDKR Chicago 101
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Helen Kelly

 * Support I added a CN tag and it's a bit short. But overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem - the one CN should be fixed, but length is reasonable. --M ASEM (t) 20:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have fixed CN tag. Marking as Ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support the article is lacking in comprehensive coverage of her life but isn't badly referenced, so it's only a weak yay from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, point taken, adding some more details. MurielMary (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support This is quality enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Antonio Guterres and the UN

 * Support on improvements I've provided a source and blurb above, giving two possible article targets, Guterres' or the article on the election. Both are not in great shape for posting presently, but this is the right point to post this. --M ASEM (t) 14:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate my concern that as with most election ITNs, it is the elected official that is the principle target, and we're still looking at a poor quality sourcing for Guterres. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after citations are added. There are a few missing on the election article, and a few dozen missing on the individual's article. Mamyles (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Despite reservations/observations placed above, nomination is supported for the due recognition at WP ITN.  Nannadeem (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is not ITNR, it's my humble opinion that we should be looking to target the actual target of this news story, i.e. Guterres, not the election itself which is somewhat immaterial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there an alternate blurb wording that you would support? Mamyles (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not until the real target is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that I think Guterres should be the/a target of this, following nearly all other election ITN entries. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  for now on article quality. I agree that the Guterres article should be the target but its referencing is well below our standards. The article on the election (currently the target article) is in somewhat better shape but still has some gaps in referencing. The article on the UN Secretary Generalship is a bit short and I added a few CN tags. But I think it is in acceptable condition for a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support The target article has been greatly improved. However the Guterres article remains unacceptable even as a secondary link. It needs to be either improved or de-linked from the blurb prior to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guterres article has been much improved. No objections to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support definitely ITN-worthy event. The target article (United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016) has been sufficiently updated and referenced. (I updated some after the oppose votes above, please take another look) HaEr48 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The page proposed for ITN has been improved to a sufficient extent. Now we should care for the portfolio for its due respect being representative of globe, however procedure’s shortfall and questions over transparency may be placed at talk page of the article for future guidance  Nannadeem (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur that that the target article has been much improved. Well done to the editors who worked on it. However Antonio Guterres is still unacceptable even as a secondary link. If we want to post this event I suggest we just de-link his name in the blurb and leave the other two. The Guterres article is linked in both of those articles anyways so its presence in the blurb as a secondary link is not essential. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All three linked articles are now good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, posting. I wanted to bold Guterres article but it still has a bunch of cn tags. Well, good enough for secondary link, I'd say. --Tone 16:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Maldives leaves the Commonwealth

 * Oppose on quality. The update is a one liner, buried in the "Foreign Relations" section, if it was that big of a deal, I'd expect it's own section with some background, statements, etc. 21st century history section is all WP:PROSELINE, and there are orange tags and large unreferenced blocks. Foreign relations of the Maldives is a mess, can't link to that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not sure this is that big of a deal. The article doesn't seem to suggest that it is. Beyond which there are significant gaps in sourcing in the target article. These would need to be fixed before we could post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Commonwealth of Nations seems to be in a better shape, so I've made further updates to that article's Termination section. As such, Commonwealth of Nations could be bolded instead. Brandmeistertalk  18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That article is better, but the story is about Maldives, not the commonwealth. The human rights record is relevant to this story, and it's not appropriate in the commonwealth article. The story is noteworthy, but the most suitable article is unsuitable. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Commonwealth is, I suspect, glad to see the back of the Maldives, but this isn't really newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Doesn't seem like a big deal; I don't know much about it but the Commonwealth seems to be somewhat loosely voluntary to participate in. The Maldives might not even exist in 50 years due to sea level rise so you would think they would want some help in dealing with it, but they don't. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a reaction against further threats of suspension for human rights' abuse etc. Playground tactics.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving asides the playground politics, this is ONLY the 4th time a country leaves the Commonwealth, which makes it rather notable. Support pending update. Nergaal (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose it doesn't seem like it will impact the government of Maldives, just largely symbolic. HaEr48 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the Commonwealth is a big international organization and it's not every day that a country leaves (or joins) it. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of international organizations are big and most of them don't have countries leaving in daily basis. Are you sure that this is a good standard? For example, would it be ITN-worthy if some country quits FIFA, or Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, or Organisation of the Islamic Conference, or Non-Aligned Movement? What makes the Commonwealth special? HaEr48 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements. I would frame this as "Civil rights abuses are so rampant in the Maldives that it leaves a prestigious international organization to avoid scrutiny". Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The target article has been switched to Commonwealth of Nations which does not alter my Oppose. I will just note that the new target has serious gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Literature

 * Support. Per ITNR &c. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Well known recipient, article is featured, totally unexpected, just post it. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  11:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb. Image can go up when it's been protected, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, this should be posted. But you should take enough time doing it to include a full stop. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I spotted that after I saved. I've also expanded the blurb to include the citation and a bold link to the prize article per the other Nobel blurbs. Should have done this in a single edit, but it's sorted now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Nobel committee's citation should be in quotes (Bob Dylan is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition."). Otherwise, good work staying on top of this Thryduulf, and I agree with the decision to post this promptly. The Dylan article is extensive, with more than 400+ citations, so it's impossible to review it, but it was a "featured article," (specifically on May 17, 2004--12+ years ago-- but it still hasn't been demoted from that status). - Christian Roess (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added quotation marks, since it is a direct quote. Personally though, I'd rather either paraphrase or omit the citation since I think it looks weird to have a direct quote there.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, I'm kinda curious: Is using a direct quote in an ITN blurb unprecedented? Anyhow, it is sort of odd, but I will lean toward weak support for continuing with the blurb as it currently stands with the direct quote. Or until an alternative is proposed that makes more sense. I say that because it is also unprecedented, as far as I know, for someone who's known primarily as a singer and songwriter to receive a Nobel Prize in Literature. Therefore, expanding the blurb to reflect that fact is justified (ie., instead of simply stating "Bob Dylan is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature"). - Christian Roess (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest (in WP's blurb) "for his lyrical contributions towards American songs". --M ASEM (t) 13:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – Dr. Bob deserved it. Sca (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Temporary Pull on quality grounds? I'm pleased he got it, I think it was an imaginative choice by the Nobel Committee, I'm not worried about the general quality of the articles, and I agree that the item should eventually be posted. My problem is we're not a news service, and these postings are supposed to provide the reader with useful background on the story. The two articles provide lots of useful background about Dylan and about the Nobel, but currently very little about the story itself. In particular we're currently not told the fact that the award is a bit controversial, nor given a decent summary of the arguments about awarding it to him (and especially the arguments against, and replies to those arguments), even though that is likely to be precisely what a lot of readers will be looking for in this case. I'm not 100% sure that's sufficient ground for temporarily pulling until the issue is fixed (hence the "?" in my heading) but I think it is at least arguably ground for giving the matter some thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that having excessive information about this particular prize would actually make us more of a news ticker than the current situation. If people want to learn about Dylan's career, or about past Nobel Prize winners, this is the place. If they want analysis of the 2016 prize, a current affairs site would make more sense. It wouldn't make sense to overload either article with this information, but it might be good if we were to create a 2016 Nobel Literature Prize article (like we currently have for 2016 Nobel Peace Prize). Smurrayinchester 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Smurray. This isn't the place to air debate about the character of the award, which anyhow has been met with global approbation. (Dylan's article logged half a million views on Thursday.) Sca (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] King of Thailand dies

 * Oppose for now The cited article appears to have been removed and there is no confirmation from other sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait So far Time mentions "unstable condition" and I'm not seeing CNN or BBC reports, for example. Brandmeistertalk  11:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support now on BBC et al. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per KTC. Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - longest-serving adds to notability starship.paint ~  KO   12:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - no photo...? blurb is up. starship.paint ~  KO   12:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Image posted. Dragons flight (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - especially considering there were news reports of the Thai people praying for the King's health the past few days. Banedon (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. Since the announcement came after the Dylan's Nobel Prize, I'll put it to the top. --Tone 12:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to include his successor, Vajiralongkorn, to the blurb. I'll wait a bit until there are more eyes on the article. --Tone 12:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a suggestion for phrasing that includes his successor and doesn't make it sound like an awkward run-on? Dragons flight (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "So-and-so succeeds [king] after the latter dies at the age of 88?" Banedon (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to CNN (on TV) the government has yet to officially announce a succession. As I understand it, the succession of the heir apparent Vajiralongkorn ought to be automatic, but I suppose there could be some surprise here.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe as a (sort of) constitutional monarchy (and given the history in Thailand) his confirmation as King needs to be confirmed by other sources rather than automatic. 1924 Palace Law of Succession is relevant. "when King Rama IX dies the cabinet will inform the president of the National Assembly who will invite Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn to become king." Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth both King of Thailand and Vajiralongkorn have been updated to say that he is King. If that is premature, then it should be fixed.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Add Royal Succession as soon as it is formally announced and referencing is beefed up a bit. We need to add the new king to the blurb unless we want to create an entirely new one which seems silly to me. Changes in head of state are ITNR. It appears there is to be a brief interlude between the late king's passing and the formal announcement of the succession. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I see none of the comments above addressed the sourcing of the article - it's not terrible in that about 75% of it is okay (I'm not asking for pulling) but there are several completely unsourced sections and additional large blocks of running prose without sources which should have been addressed before posting. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment I strongly agree with 's assessment. The article quality is not horrible, but there are significant gaps in referencing. Not enough for me to urge the article be pulled, but if it had not been posted with such haste, my vote would have been support conditional on filling in some of those gaps. We really need to look at articles before we post them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is purely academic for me to bring this up but if we are posting this under ITNR we should mention the successor, since that's really what the ITNR listing refers to("the succession of a head of state") and not just the death(which would likely merit posting anyway). 331dot (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The throne is currently vacant as the succession has not yet been proclaimed. However I am sure that once it is announced formally the blurb will be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just read that the Crown Prince will succeed to the throne but he wants time to mourn first. Not sure if that means he will wait a year(the officially announced mourning period) or just until he is ready. I still think it might be beneficial to mention him. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Legislative Assembly convened today with the initial expectation that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn would be named King, but the Prince asked to delay his own appointment to the throne for "appropriate time" to allow the country and the Prince himself to grieve the passing of the former King.   As best I can tell, though there is no ambiguity in the succession, he won't officially become King until offered the position by the government (constitutional monarchies are confusing).  At that point he would be the King, even though the actual coronation is unlikely to happen for months.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, succession is automatic & no proclamation is required. Like in Britain, Elizabeth II succeeded her father on February 6, 1952 & proclaimed February 8, 1952. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not found a single reliable source saying he is King. I have found dozens saying he is the heir presumptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dario Fo

 * Support Article looks fine. I removed an uncited statement, but other than that, I can't find any major issues.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I added two citation needed tags, but they address minor issues that could probably be fixed or removed easily enough.  Also, I do wonder if the red links are being used excessively.  Not being an expert on Italian plays, I can't really say, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of his less successful works lack the secondary sources needed to ever stand alone as articles.  However, I wouldn't oppose posting his article just on that regard.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comment There are some "[1]" style markings in the prose that suggest either someone attempted to add sources but didn't know how or copied and pasted the text from another article. I haven't got time to investigate whether this is an issue though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is in a section talking about 5 monologues. I think someone enumerated them [1] to [5], which is kind of awkward but I don't think it is related to sourcing.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Nobel prize for literature in 1997. Why don't put his death on top news? --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid with no significant issues. Referencing is refreshingly solid. I'm marking this as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been good to go for three or four hours, is there anything other than the lack of trustworthy admins holding it back? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the ready status after reviewing the article & doing some copy edits. There are a few outstanding citations needed and one place where the meaning is unclear; also I note that a GA review failed in 2013 due to over-reliance on one (offline) source amounting at times to suspected close paraphrasing. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds dubious, all ways round. We assume GF on offline sources, but it they are offline, where is the evidence of "suspected close paraphrasing" please?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, before looking at the talk page, I removed one phrase that was obviously copied from somewhere, which the GA reviewer had independently highlighted. I think the reviewer was looking at fragments in Google snippet view. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it should be taken to WP:GAR given your concerns. In which case, somewhat paradoxically, I'll have to oppose my own nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was (rightly, imo) failed back in 2013, but no-one seems to have looked into the issues the reviewer raised in the intervening years. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake, it's not a GA. Can you tag any of the remaining offending clauses?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Khazar2 (who has retired otherwise I'd ping them) appears to have been worried about all the article that is predominantly sourced to Mitchell -- "A second issue here, and a bit trickier to evaluate, is the article's almost exclusive reliance on Mitchell. I can't see more than a sentence or two at a time in Google Books preview, but I'm concerned that the article follows Mitchell's work to a degree that could rise to a copyright issue, including an unnecessary reliance on his language. For example, the description of the canned meat TV show gag appears to be closely paraphrased from Mitchell; describing the TV content as "diversionary and trivial" are Mitchell's words exactly; etc. This might not be a major issue if one of these was the only bit taken from Mitchell, but without other sources to interweave, I'm concerned about the copyright status." [edit conflicted with Christian Roess below] Espresso Addict (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment (with a tentative support) - one of the GA reviewer's concerns was the over-reliance on only one source (Mitchell's book Dario Fo: People's Court Jester) throughout the article. So there is the need to verify against this source for those instances of "suspected close paraphrasing" throughout the article. Nonetheless, IMO, the article is of sufficient quality to post to RD, because after checking a few random citations, I didn't find anything overly suspicious. And I don't believe there's an WP:OR issue here either, if that's a concern. But anyhow that's just my own quick look through. And that's based on a random check of 7 citations out of the 90+ references in Mitchell's book (yes, at least 90+ out of 118 use Mitchell!). Maybe that's not good enough, so I'll check some more and get back to you later if I can. Christian Roess (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * additional note - I'm having to use the book search feature on amazon.com, the Google books feature is a waste of time. As an example, I do see in citation #51 that it uses almost the same wording as Mitchell, so it probably should be quoted. But it is on page 122, that is correct, and it discusses a controversial instance of Fo's partner, the actress Rave, and mentions her rape, mutilation, and torture. So these are not wild speculations and gratuitous remarks being injected throughout the article. The citations are accurate and verifiable it seems, so far. Christian Roess (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a few spot checks too, and I agree with Khazar2 that, while there isn't frank copying of more than fragments, there is too close adherence to the source. [edit conflicted] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support I think the article is good enough and though no longer a requirement he has accomplished so many for the nation of Italy and his criticisms of politics along with his wit has become well known globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support The man deserves this. Banquo71 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support Good article, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support It's unclear, from the above discussion, if there are still unresolved issues with the article, or not. Currently it has five tags in the text. Are these actually preventing marking it as ready? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first "clarification needed" tag regarding Fo's explanation for his participation in the Republic of Salò is a bit of a problem. The clause "Fo did not deny this affiliation but supported this moot thesis" is indeed unclear unless one understands the succession of explanations, court trials, interviews, lasting over two decades. I don't claim to understand it, but it:wp has a summary on this controversy (it:Dario_Fo), thogh that entire section is tagged too. I do think it's muddled and misleading to leave it the way it's written now, but I don't have what it takes to fix it. ---Sluzzelin  talk  19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready. Note that we don't require every minor tag to be resolved, especially in as long an article as this. ITN criteria simply state that bolded links must have no orange/red-level banners, and that the updated content be thoroughly referenced. Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of information, the instructions state that Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN... and nothing more. I.e. the key word in the ruleset here is "usually"...   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True, even orange and red tags can be posted with consensus (though I doubt we'd ever do that). Criteria for blurbs also states "Other tags (such as yellow level tags, or notices about merge discussions, etc.) are not themselves sufficient to block an item which otherwise has consensus..." Mamyles (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some admins have found it upon themselves to promote items that have been thus tagged. That's why we can't ever discount it happening.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Five in-line tags seems a long way down the list. Now two days since he died. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jack Greenberg

 * Oppose article contains external links in the prose, and hasn't been fully updated post mortem. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I took care of the external link, and I think I found the remaining tense problems. Dragons flight (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs Attention. How's it look now? Seems pretty good to me. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Dylan Rieder

 * Oppose as already noted, tagged for poor sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom. Extremely poor quality. I know I have been beating this particular horse to death, but I really do not agree with nominating articles that absent a complete overhaul, have no chance whatever of being posted. (climbing down from my soapbox...) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You only die once. (YODO?)  As far as I can tell only a handful of wiki notable people die on the typical day, so it isn't exactly overwhelming and sometimes other people are interested in helping once they hear about the death.  For example, sometimes ITN commenter  picked up working on Michiyo Yasuda's article after it was posted here.  We could say that ITN/C is only for things that are nearly ready to post, or we could say that ITN/C is also for encouraging improvement to articles that are potentially eligible to be posted.  Personally, I'm much more inclined towards the latter viewpoint.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do think it's a waste of everyone's time nominating articles of this quality level until some improvement has been effected. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree but marvellous things have happened to nominated RDs, some folks occasionally jump on board and improve Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If nominators are going to include every recent death, irrespective of article quality, we might as well just transclude the entirety of the recent deaths list here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to this particular nom, sorry, but just carrying on the conversation ..... I suggest we use a [tag] such as "[Needs work]" for noms which we know are a bit below-par but might interest other editors who could work on improving them. Or, only nominate articles which are already at the standard needed. I agree with EA, nominating every person with a WP article is pointless. MurielMary (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, my understanding of the "Deaths in..." list is that it goes so far as to allow red linked articles for something like 30 days, so we wouldn't be posting those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Tommy Ford

 * Oppose inadequate quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs Attention. How's it look now? Seems pretty good to me. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

RD: Michiyo Yasuda

 * Oppose Very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on sourcing improvements - Woefully lacking sources, but as part of Ghibli it should not be too difficult to find some to support the text. --M ASEM (t) 02:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Samsung Galaxy Note 7

 * Comment. Without having decided on the merits yet, I think the blurb should mention the reason for ending production, otherwise it just sounds like a routine business matter. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with better blurb. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest a blurb and I'll add it as altblurb3. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Though, I suggest a blurb along the lines of “Samsung announces it will permanently discontinue the production of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7.” —britannic124 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post new versions of mobile phones so I'm not clear why we post a version that has had a few burnouts and is thus discontinued. We don't post all vehicle recalls (which often number in their millions), it's just one of those things.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for this being proposed is that the phone was recalled twice and permanently discontinued, something that is unprecedented. And it is especially noteworthy because it happened to the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world. —britannic124 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did anyone die or get seriously injured? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Thousands of products are faulty and are recalled. In none of those circumstances would we post them on the main page, so simply because there are more of these products I don't see the issue.  See, for example, Opel_Zafira where thousands upon thousands of cars were recalled (twice) because they kept catching fire.  A few scorched pillows and outraged videos on YouTube doesn't equate to that, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring history, cherry-picking lame examples. There are millions of phones being recalled, affecting millions of people. The product is discontinued, unlike even the Ford Pinto. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But I'm curious, other than inconvenience, is there any real issue here other than a recall of a commercial product? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (comment removed by The ed17).
 * Again, I'm not sure why you take this tone, and I have noted it, once again, but Kim Kardashian's robbery was "all over the news", Brexit is "all over the news", mad clowns (inc. Trump) are "all over the news". I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We have Wikinews for that kind of thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for that, but I hardly think that pointing out that big product recalls that make the news happen all the time is "lame"; but I still consider the fact that this product (one of dozens made by Samsung) isn't going to be made any more to be interesting, but not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk)
 * Oppose: Even with the stature of the parties involved, this still boils down to "A product was discontinued because its battery explodes", which can also be said of self-balancing scooters (the recall of which was not advertised on the front page). A recall of an international product, in a category that many people take for granted in regards to product safety, might seem newsworthy at first glance, but there have been larger, more significant recalls in other product categories. It's significant for its sector, but in the grand scheme of things this is merely a blip. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people in most nations have mobile phones these days; the phone sector is much larger than the self-balancing scooter sector. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the market is larger, but our article states that over half a million self-balancing scooters were recalled, so the magnitude is comparable. Also, the deaths/injuries are comparable, i.e. virtually nil.  The Rambling Man (talk)
 * But the Galaxy Note 7 is also a relatively niche product (arguably, the series created said niche). Now, if Apple had to do this, or it happened to one of Samsung's more-popular models (i.e. a Galaxy S phone), that might be a bit more newsworthy. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I'm not feeling this as rising to ITN level attention. On a side note the article appears to be in decent shape, so that's not an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I understand the concerns given above but it is unusual for a product to be recalled, supposedly fixed, recalled again, and finally production outright ended.  The article is also in decent shape. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, millions of these are affected. Would ITN have posted the Ford Pinto recall? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably, yes, because as that article expounds, The safety controversy of the vehicle is cited widely in case studies of business ethics. This product phase-out will be a shrug-of-the-shoulders moment in the history of mobile tech.  No-one but Samsung really cares about this already.  "Millions of these are affected".  Did you mean millions of phones are now declared unsafe yet only one person hospitalised?  People are now just looking for what they can get back from Samsung.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was hardly likely to have already been widely cited, if at all, at the time we would have been considering posting it. —Cryptic 22:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I understand this event has some significance in the tech and consumer world, but in the larger scheme of world news, with sympathy to the proposers, I still think this is small potatoes. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - millions are affected by this. This has risen to ITN level.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A faulty tech product – of transitory significance. Sca (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - problem with this is that it's not really a signature product. Comparatively the iPhone 7/7+ for example is the one and only iOS-using (most modern) smartphone, and Windows 10 has a lock on the PC OS market. The Galaxy Note 7 however is just one of many Android products, and there are many Android phone makers. Considering we didn't post the iPhone 7 & Windows 10 releases, it's hard to see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - When the New York Times breaks with this as their lead story, it's safe to say that the impact of this cannot be overstated.--WaltCip (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - No, it's not the iPhone, but we're talking about something that the FAA issued orders against use on a plane (compared to all other phones). This is going to be costly to Samsung as they promoted the heck out of this. If we were in a busier news cycle I would probably be less hesistant to post this, but with the slow cycle, this is a big story, and the article seems in reasonably good shape. --M ASEM (t) 02:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

 * Support on article improvement - Was coming here to nominate after checking both articles, and both are in dire need of sourcing and some reasonable bit of expansion. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know you don't need to do that. It's ITNR so you don't need to state "Support on article improvement", that would be the default vote for every single ITNR ever nominated, so it renders the position pointless.  It's an "oppose" vote or it's nothing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's ways to impart the same information without condescension, TRM. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not one single drop of condescension there, it's pure fact. If you don't mind I'll keep a public record of your bad faith accusation in light of the Arbcom case.  The point I've made is that there's absolutely no reason at all to say "support upon improvement" to an ITNR, it's meaningless.  Once the article is up to speed it'll be posted by a trusted admin.  Thanks, as ever, for your input, but as I've said, and if you don't mind, I'll keep your diff on public view in a sandbox hereafter.  For the avoidance of doubt, you can see it at User:The Rambling Man/sandbox and you are welcome to remove it or modify it if you believe it to be an unfair representation of your dialogue with me here this evening.  I will also be keeping offline records of everything related to this discussion, including the background, for context.  Thanks again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice! Chilling effect in action. More on your talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I note also your bad faith accusation. Why do you need to forum shop?  You contributed significantly to the Arbcom case against me so you already know that your language here can be interpreted by others as a reason to summarily block me.  I will continue to record such instances.  In future, please work to avoid derailing ITN discussions and use a more appropriate venue for your accusations.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * An individual instance of an ITNR can fail for being a trivial case of the generalized ITNR even if the article quality is impeccable. It's highly infrequent but it is an option. "Support with improvements" is positive and helpful language to make it easy to those interested in getting the topic(s) posted to the ITN box that a commenter here accepts their nom as worthy of posting but that there are problems to be fixed, compared to an "Oppose" which may function as the same thing but looks more negative. It's far less bitey, effectively. --M ASEM (t) 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. There's nothing "bitey" about opposing a nomination.  It's a personal opinion based on the criteria used to determine whether an item should appear on the main page.  If an item isn't ready, and per ITNR, the only thing that needs to make it ready is quality, then oppose is perfectly reasonable.  We're not here to massage egos, we here to select items for the main page.  I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the reality of the situation.  There's nothing bitey or belittling about my opposition to items that aren't ready for the main page, but, as above, I'll take a record of this conversation in case it's held against me per the Arcbom ruling, just to let you know.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An "Oppose" is not wrong nor should be discouraged from being used, but it is very curt and may be demoralizing to ITNC nominators when the chance for posting is still opened due to topic importance. (And this was a point I brought up last year which had general agreement). Further, speaking for myself, I often will review an ITN/C entry and then not come back to it unless I'm either pinged or I have a strong interest in it or just happen to drop by the ITNC page again. Thus, I've actually found my "support with improvements" to be a way to signal to the review admin that I did not outright oppose the article, and that that (based on my timestamp) that if the article was improved to my concerns they can consider my new !vote a support without having to re-engage me for it. One can say the the same thing in the explanation in an "Oppose", obviously, but it can make analysis a bit more difficult, particularly if its not clear in one's explanation that if the article was improved one would support it.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. An oppose is merely a statement of a position. I oppose this nomination, it's not ready. When it is ready, I will happily strike my oppose.   We should be able to trust our admins to assess the relevance of an oppose vote should some users not return to re-assess.  I have noted this discussion, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no indication of which articles are intended as primary targets so I am grading all of them. Only the article on the actual award is in acceptable shape for posting. The others fall well short of our standards for linking, with referencing being the main deficiency. I don't have a problem with throwing out an occasional "conditional support" for a nomination that is close, but not quite up to scratch. That said, articles with obvious and very serious shortcomings really should not be nominated until they have been improved to the point where they have at least a chance of being posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNR makes it very clear that the prize is the ITNR article, if that's not up to scratch then this isn't an ITNR nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you meant that the winner of the prize is the ITNR article? Stephen 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, my poor typing, per ITNR Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.... applies here. Thanks for the nudge...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose both target articles (redirect too) are tagged at the top with orange maintenance banners. Not acceptable for the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone is going to have to explain to me what the non-free tag is going on about at Oliver Hart? Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was tagged by, who might explain. Stephen 23:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was added in error. Thanks for the heads up. I have removed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Thompson

 * Support Article looks solid and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sourced and beyond a stub and updated. --M ASEM (t) 02:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull I never heard of the individual, sure the article is in good shape but I don't think he has any significance or how he meets the RD criteria. This was also posted rather fast even only after two supports within seconds apart. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no RD criteria anymore, beyond article quality and update, per the RFC linked in the box above. As long as they are notable, they qualify for RD. --M ASEM (t) 04:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did post it quite quickly, but as quality & update are currently the only criteria for RDs, the fact that three admins (including myself) & one other ITN regular all reviewed it positively seemed adequate to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump vs Clinton : This time it's personal

 * SNOW close. We don't post every notable moment in a political campaign.  If we did this for the US, we would have to do it for every nation. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So what exactly is the point of ITN? It looks like a joke when you compare it to what I see on the news stand at my local shop, which has nothing but this, wall to wall. Also, it highlights a new article (or at least one which people have not seem keen to take to AfD yet). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The point of ITN can be found here. This is not a news ticker or campaign ticker, but a place to feature quality articles about subjects found to be in the news. If others agree that this is, fair enough, but I happen not to. As I indicated, if we do this for the US, it would be very difficult to refuse to do so for other nations.  The US election will be posted at some point soon after November 8th and short of a major change in the election we shouldn't post every step in it(Trump quitting would merit posting, I think, as that's unusual).  We have WikiNews for persons interested in just posting news stories.  331dot (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and agree with SNOW closure. We'll post the result of the election when it happens. We cannot post every campaign event, debate or controversy. Imagine what would happen to ITN if we did that for every election worldwide - it would be a constant stream of 'politician X accuses politician Y of something, which they deny'. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news website. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Post Closing Comment I agree with the SNOW close based on precedent and our unwritten but fairly strict rule about not covering elections until the results are in. However this is no ordinary election, so I am opening a discussion on the talk page about this for anyone who is interested. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reopen and support: don't close a discussion after mere minutes, please. Especially for an "unwritten" rule. A major party presidential candidate in a major world power calling for the imprisonment of a political opponent is newsworthy and worth a post here, where we should be posting more (not less), and I'd like to see more discussion—although given the climate at ITN, I expect that it will end the same. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that was an astonishing and remarkable moment, but then the blurb needs to be adjusted, and the article on the debates needs to include it, and it all needs to be sourced as extraordinary. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This should not have been reopened. Trump's behavior is abnormal but it's still no more than political back-and-forth. We may make a separate post if he doesn't recognize the results of Hillary's eventual victory *knock on wood* but not this. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)Donald Trump has called for Clinton to be jailed for months; at the debate he simply said it to her face. Suggest reclosure per WP:SNOW; this is not an election ticker(plus my already-mentioned statement above). The blurb is also a general blurb and would need to be refocused if that's what is desired. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize we were talking about the jail thing. I'll reiterate: call me when the deplorables take to the street to try to revolt against President Clinton. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Andrzej Wajda

 * I don't think this is ITN/R as it is claimed in the above template? — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved since the news broke.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support An important figure; claims in article seem referenced. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article seems well-referenced now. Jopo (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go; well referenced and meets the quality standards. — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 09:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Gleeson

 * Support Article looks solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, this has been marked ready for 15 hours now... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Frustrating, isn't it. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * More symptomatic than frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Three demerits for marking this as "ready" while the article incorrectly reported his date of death.  I also added two citation needed tags for interesting but unsourced factoids.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation in use at the time was dated 8 October and had no more information, the one that subsequently arrived clarified it in terms of time zones. Great spot, but demerits rejected.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * tags fixed and Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Georgia election

 * Comment Not right now, as too soon, and the blurb might not even be correct, depending on the election result. Once the result is official, then I'll support this with the correct winning party. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 10:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Article needs updating and significant expansion. Right now it's an out of date stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is woeful and the blurb sounds like a Europop band won the election. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on the article for now, but that's the party name!Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it may be better to introduce them, e.g. "Center-left political party "Georgian Dream" wins..." to avoid the Europop/horse race analogy. But that's just me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb that introduces them as the ruling party. HaEr48 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that works well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Morocco election

 * Comment as in the above nomination, wait until results are confirmed. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 10:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * comment results are in here and PJD won a plurality but needs more prose update.Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait Article needs significant expansion and updating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a stub article and the ongoing issues over using terms such as "plurality" without linking or disambiguation need resolving. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done it before, and at any rate, youre an admin you can link it.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, not any more! But anyone can adjust the blurb, I'm just saying it ought to be done before it's posted (if it gets posted of course) to avoid a trip to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb that introduces the party as the "ruling party" and reworded plurality with link. HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support ITN/R and I think the article has sufficient update. HaEr48 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

 * Oppose in current form. Hook needs to be re-written and neutral in tone without speculation.  The story is newsworthy however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man: What do you think about the new form, thanks to Banedon's edit. -- M h hossein   talk 09:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with a blurb which contains overt speculation, regardless of whether or not it's backed up with reliable sources. We, as an encyclopedia, should be sticking to the bare facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better (for me) if it went along the lines of "Saudi Arabia pledge to investigate an airstrike that killed 151 people at a funeral in Yemen." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but oppose as nominated, because the target article is not very related to the news item (which at present is one line of text in the article). I'm going to boldly edit the blurb as well since it contains several typos. Banedon (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, likely a war crime. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I am not opposed to the idea, but the hook needs to be more specifically directed than just to the article which is far too long to expect the reader to wade through looking for the referenced subject. That should be an easy fix. The not so easy fix is the article's excessive length. I really don't know how that can be solved without taking a scalpel to the article. But in any event it can't be linked on the front page with the maintenance tag still up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor can a blurb with heavy POV be listed either. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The speculative part of the blurb needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Nobel Peace Prize

 * Oppose alt blurb; the award was given for his efforts, not his success. We should just post that he was awarded the prize. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support (first blurb). Announcement with significant international interest over the next few days. [note: I am author of the '2016 Nobel Peace Prize' article] Wittylama 10:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the first blurb. It seems like both articles are in good shape thanks to Liam's efforts and this can already be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and I added a more concise subject-verb-object altblurb 2. They're going to have to change the name of the award though: Arafat/Peres/Rubin for peace in the Middle East, Obama for nuclear non-proliferation, now Santos for a ceasefire that's already been rejected.  Nobel Aspirational Prize?128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the Colombian referendum is currently an 'In the news' topic, would there be any merit in merging the two stories as in altblurb 1? Otherwise, it might look like they're unrelated stories, which isn't quite the case. Neegzistuoja (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be really careful with combining though not against it. They are obviously connected, but there's nothing to indicate that the Nobel's selection was based on what happened in the referendum (they appear to have awarded to him for getting the peace talks to that point in the first place). We don't want the combined blurb to cast blame, etc. --M ASEM (t) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * True. It would be a slap in the ace to his predecessor.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the Committee's statement further a combined statement may point out that the prize is for his previous and ongoing efforts in negotiating peace despite the referendum going against the first plan, as he is still spearheading the discussions to affect the deal to make it more amenable to all. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - looking at paragraph three in particular (of that press release) it seems that the award was given not only despite the referendum loss, but even because of it - "The Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasizes the importance of the fact that President Santos is now inviting all parties to participate in a broad-based national dialogue aimed at advancing the peace process. Even those who opposed the peace accord have welcomed such a dialogue. The Nobel Committee hopes that all parties will take their share of responsibility and participate constructively in the upcoming peace talks." Wittylama 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to write an altblurb 3 connecting the two uncausally, with less over-linking. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Typically the target article for the Nobels is the person(s) awarded, not the prize. And Santos' article unfortunately has a section of disputed neutrality (though its otherwise reasonably sourced). --M ASEM  (t) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if I do say so myself (as the primary author of the page) the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize article is already more extensive and significantly more footnoted than the the preceding year's articles (e.g. 2015 = 6,000 bytes and 8 footnotes, 2016 = 12,000 bytes and 23 footnotes). Wittylama 14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * merge bump the Colombia vote and merge these. nobel war prize wants to be relevant now? Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Original or Alt2. Agree with Masem re target article. Oppose merger with Columbia vote. Sca (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . The primary target article is fine. However, some of the other articles linked in the various blurbs cannot be linked on the main page in their current condition. While perfection is not required, any article linked on the main page must be in at least decent shape with no glaring gaps in referencing and no orange tags. On a related note, these blurbs look a bit over-linked. Most of the secondary articles are already linked within the target article.Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 4. I have added a plain bare essentials alternative blurb. It removes the problematic secondary links most of which can be found in the target article anyway. This should resolve the issues cited in my above oppose vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. I have used a version without mentioning the referendum, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus for including that right now.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull or de-link Colombian conflict which has massive gaps in referencing. That article is no where near in condition to be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Colombian conflict has gaps in inline referencing, though the total number of references and referenced content is substantial. However, I disagree that the article's deficiencies rise to the level that would exclude it from being linked as a secondary article in an ITN item.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I respectfully but strongly disagree. Linking an article on the main page is an endorsement of that article's quality by the community. Whether it's bolded or not is immaterial. The article in question does not meet the standards that I have understood to apply to articles being considered for that distinction. I would also note that the link is unnecessary as the problematic article is linked within the primary target article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. If we had to check the quality of all non-bolded article links on the main page, we'd be here all day.  Perhaps you would like to propose some kind of amendment to the various main page projects?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. And it's WP:WORKINPROGRESS, so appearance on the main page could be even beneficial in terms of attracting more editors for improvement. Brandmeistertalk  17:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What TRM and Brandmeister said. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now there are 2 Colombia posts on the same issue (albeit when the elections above are posted tshould go).Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rebecca Wilson

 * Support article is fine, fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support meets the criteria. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Alistair Urquhart

 * Weak Support Decent article but it could do with a few more references as they are a bit bare at the moment. Article is also on the short side and it could possibly do with a bit of expansion but if it isn't expanded it should still be ok for ITN. — <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 12:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks sufficient in size and referencing to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Steven Woolfe

 * Oppose posting (if I understand it correctly) an assault between two members of the same party in a private meeting. It wasn't on the floor of the EP or a physical altercation between different parties. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivial. MurielMary (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look particularly trivial, well at least not to the subject photographed! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A guy got attacked at work. Ended up in hospital. That's the sum total of the story, which is why I consider it trivial. MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Woolfe is reported as conscious, lucid and not with any potentially serious long-term harm. This is mercifully not at the equivalent of the murder of Jo Cox Valentina Cardoso (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Woolfe has sent his "olive brach email" to Hookem. Hookem has explained the "tussle" on BBC Radio 4. Big up to EU healthcare, of course. . Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Brigitte Hamann

 * Weak Oppose I've done some general tidying of the article but there is too much unsourced material to be posted in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state due to uncited claims. (I actually looked at this a couple of days ago but felt it needed too much work to ready for RD!) MurielMary (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose too poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Short, terribly referenced article. Challenger l (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rod Temperton

 * Oppose for now. Too many gaps in sourcing and there is a maintenance tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think that a source is required for every item in the list of his compositions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be the ideal. But at a minimum anything that does not link to its own Wikipedia article including the red links needs a cite. I would think that there must be a source somewhere that lists all of his compositions. That could probably be used as an omnibus cite for the entire section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discogs source, given both as a global source and as an External link, covers all his songs. The redlinks have also been sourced separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when was discogs a reliable source? Anyone can submit anything anywhere at anytime. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was sure I'd seen discogs used in one of two other musician articles around here. I can revert all those additions if you think that would improve the article. There are two other sources there too. Meanwhile I see that User:Ghmyrtle has added this source to External links. Perhaps that could be used instead? (I guess maybe better to continue this discussion at the article Talk Page). Or does the nomination just fail anyway since we have no exact date of death? It may have been about two weeks ago already. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I've done what I can, based on sources and obits.  Anything else?    Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – the article looks very good now :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment is that image really fair use? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's gone! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016

 * Wait – 'Til he becomes secretary-general. Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be best to wait until the final vote in the General Assembly. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * obvious wait and also add that he was ultimately elected by the 71st UNGA.
 * Done ALTBRLURB3 and also in line with consistency on electons.
 * question will we repost when he takes office on 1 Jan?Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this should be posted after formally elected/acclaimed by the General Assembly, which should be sometime today. He is technically not even nominated yet. Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Next week. -- KTC (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Michal Kováč

 * Comment. When the article is this unsuitable, I'm not sure whether there's much point in nominating it here, unless you plan to improve it? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't have much time right now, maybe someone will chime in. Brandmeistertalk  06:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Espresso Addict. The article is almost completely unreferenced. This may be a candidate for a SNOW close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the rush to close a good-faith nomination? Being the former president of a country would have made him eligible even under the old system where "extra" notability was required for listing in RD. All it will take is one bilingual person to add some references and it will be good to go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite, we don't snow close because an item is of low quality, there's plenty of time to fix this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Matthew

 * Support I was thinking of nominating this for ongoing because it's already a major event and likely to continue to be one for at least the next several days. But IMO it deserves a blurb. The article is well written and decently sourced (one CN tag and the table of warnings needs a cite). It is also being updated regularly. One observation is that if/when this is posted we will likely have to update the blurb from time to time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait - It's about to make landfall again in the Southeastern U.S. and there might be some additional damages. When that happens, the death figures in the Caribbean might be more solid and there will also be an opportunity to report on damages in the U.S. as well, particularly if there are any deaths as a result of this C4 hurricane.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per updated death toll below, as that was something that was not known at the time this was initially nominated. Lugnuts, don't bloody misrepresent what I said.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait per WaltCip. Palmtree5551 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem below Palmtree5551 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not !voting because I'd like to post when the time comes, but I would suggest posting on landfall with the US with a blurb similar to "After killing at least XXX in the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew makes landfall in the United States near City, State", if consensus ends up supporting posting. I have added this format as an alt blurb; feel free to tweak as necessary. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 100 dead in Haiti, but we're waiting for some white Americans to be affected before we post it.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly fair, at the time of WaltCip's original comment, the blurb indicated 17 deaths (source) Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – There shouldn't be any need to wait for posting this given the devastating effects in Haiti. If need be, the blurb can be updated in a day or two anyways. I'd boldly post it, but I'm too involved with the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The 100+ in Haiti makes this something we should post sooner, not later. It is near assured it will landfall in Florida somewhere and there will likely be damage, but we're already past a threshold where the death toll and the damage is significant before considering what might happen in the US. We can readily update once the landfall happens. --M ASEM (t) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted per User:Lugnuts. I combined the blurb and the alt blurb to more closely match previous wording of other storm blurbs (based on my memory, not research, so please fix if I'm wrong). Per User:Cyclonebiskit, this will need substantial rewording of the blurb over the next few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The news here is the damage and the high death toll that the hurricane has caused in the Caribbean so far but not the fact that it is approaching southeastern United States. The blurb should be accordingly modified to document just that part of the story, whereas we can add the United States at any time once the hurricane results in similar casualties there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not everything is about casualties. While "Cyclone X approaches Y" probably wouldn't be posted on ITN by itself, that doesn't mean that predicted future impacts are an unimportant part of the story.  About 3 million people live in the declared evacuation zones.  In general, I support including predicted paths for major cyclones approaching populated areas.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Future events should be automatically dismissed as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The evacuation itself is not worth a blurb regardless of how many people were relocated and there are multiple cases in the past that weren't posted on that basis. I don't like the idea to misuse the fact that more than 300 people were killed in the Caribbean to report about a future event in the southeastern United States.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As i assume you know, CRYSTALBALL allows for the inclusion of expected or predicted events that are widely discussed in reliable sources. For me, approaching cyclones fall in that category, at least when they are close enough that an impact is near certain.  As I said, we probably wouldn't have posted solely based on an approaching cyclone, but given that we have already posted I support including the ongoing track in the blurb.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the US should be removed from the blurb until we know what effects there have been there. There are also models that have this storm looping around and hitting the Bahamas and Florida again(though weaker if that happens). 331dot (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified the blurb per this discussion. The news focus appears to have moved away from potential effects on Florida to documenting the extent of the effects in Haiti. If there proves to be ITN-worthy damage in the US, the date can be incremented and the new information added. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: The death toll has now topped 1,000. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Over 1,000, actually. Also, we do have an article on the effects on the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti if it's possible to link that with the "mainly in Haiti" part of the blurb.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 02:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't made the change to 1,000 because the sources currently available seem insufficiently reliable to me. Reliable sources I've seen are continuing to say either c. 900 or 877. On the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, the article quality is inadequate to link; it is completely out of date for a start. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters from about an hr ago? (BBC 4 hr back is at 900, but its obviously going up.) --M ASEM (t) 03:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters says they came up with the number by adding up totals from reports, which is notoriously prone to double counting; I'd personally like to see someone reputable pick it up before we do. BBC doesn't update much at this time of night but has been stuck on c900 for more than 24 hours as I recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is Reuters not reputable? And they're not using random reports, they're using a "tally of numbers" from government officials—a similar way ("civil protection officials") to how the BBC figured the "nearly 900" figure we're currently using on the main page. Other news outlets are picking up the tally as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My thanks to for updating the blurb! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Best way to deal with these updates is via WP:ERRORS. Most of the time, a posted blurb will be overlooked for correction purposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Chemistry)

 * Support - I think it would probably be better if it was one page that lists all the winners of the 2016 round instead of having an entry for each of them though. I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article/s (probably the persons' ones or a new one) - their findings should be elucidated. --Fixuture (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Grouped Nobel laureates are difficult. We do have lists of laureates for each prize (eg List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry) and I note that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry now features these three as the current winners. But very often, when a group of researchers are given the prize, it is for their separate advances in that specific field as infrequently the work was done in any coordinated manner. Consider this prize, the work is award for discoordinated research efforts over a 16 year period ; the committee instead recognizes how the advancement from Sauvage's work to Stoddart's to Feringa's collectively brought significant impact to the area of molecular machines. Hence why ITNR for Nobel is the person(s) winning the prize. --M ASEM (t) 00:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also you're probably looking for this page too List of Nobel laureates. --M ASEM (t) 00:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I do not have an opinion on if we should post the winners at one time or individually. I know however that this one should be posted, clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support--98.88.130.52 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alphabetized the laureates by last name. Although Sauvage's article is shorter, the others are well updated--I could unbold his, but it would look weird. If someone feels differently, please go ahead and do so.  Spencer T♦ C 13:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Paris agreement

 * Comment The article currently says "The agreement will only enter into force provided that 55 countries that produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions ratify, accept, approve or accede to the agreement; although the minimum number of ratifications has been reached, the ratifying states do not produce the requisite percentage of greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force". The infobox also says "Not in effect", so probably it's too early right now. Brandmeistertalk  07:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK when I lied when I wrote "article updated" - updating this now (see the sources for current situation). Banedon (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * EU, US, India and China have signed it. That must be over 55%. Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's waiting on the 55 countries rather than the 55%. Between these 4 that's about 2 dozen countries so we're still short by half. I suspect how Russia votes will be important, but as per the BBC article, this is a step towards global ratification but it is not fully ratified. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article it is over 55 countries but not 55%, but like 52%. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when article properly updated in the body. The UN now states that the threshold was met on 5 Oct. I'm not sure the EU signing is critical, as not all the individual countries have yet ratified. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Physics)

 * Oppose for now - per nom. I am seeing some efforts at improving the article on Dr. Haldane. The other two need significant work before they could be linked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Kosterlitz–Thouless transition is a relevant article. Count Iblis (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support--98.88.130.52 (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The articles on the prize winners are basic but referenced; I don't see any harm in posting them. This is in danger of going stale. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] New Estonian President - first female

 * Comment. Yes, an election for head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Good quality. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I've added another altblurb to clarify that those are indirect elections. Brandmeistertalk  12:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Original blurb - USA presidential elections are also indirect, but we never mention that. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is solid and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD:Hanoi Hannah/Trinh Thi Ngo

 * Weak support – though the article is clearly start-class, its sourcing looks fine and the topic is fascinating. I think it's definitely worth listing at RD now, though I wish the sourcing was a bit better. The lack of early/late life information doesn't bother me too much, though I wish we could have some information about her own political beliefs during the war. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the below discussion, I would prefer it to be posted under her legal name rather than her American common name. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not post as Hanoi Hannah - That's not her name even if the GIs called her that.--WaltCip (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a redirect from her real name Trinh Thi Ngo to the HH page. Or is it appropriate to rename the HH page as her real name? MurielMary (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We usually post the COMMONNAME, so if it shouldn't be Hanoi Hannah, the article needs to be moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Biographies may correctly be titled using a pseudonym if that is how the person is most widely discussed in reliable sources. See WP:STAGENAME.  As for which name to use at RD, I'm actually rather conflicted.  If this is a valid application of STAGENAME (and never having heard of her before today, I don't know if it is), then presumably Hanoi Hannah is the better known name and would be more recognizable to our readers.  To give a more modern analogy, I imagine that if Katy Perry dropped dead, it would be more useful to readers to list her stage name than to post her legal name, Katheryn Hudson, at RD.  Is there precedent for the question of pseudonyms at RD?  I notice the Newsweek source uses her pseudonym in its title but introduces and uses her real name in the body of its text.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. Has Trinh ever stated anything about her 'stagename'? Did she identify herself under that name, or was it a name given to her literally by her "enemies"? ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war.    I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of systemic bias you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this: unless we know for sure she heard of and accepted the American nickname, her article should be at her given name, not the nick name (though obviously the redirect there is fine). It's a flat out BLP violation. --M ASEM (t) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am reading a consensus here to move the article, which I have just done, to Trịnh Thị Ngọ (diacritics and all per MOS:FOREIGN. The Rambling Man's COMMONNAME argument is refuted by some, but Masem's BLP comment is well taken, as are Maplestrip and WaltCip's arguments about being named by an enemy and racism. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the article. I agree that it is appropriate here to use her real name as "HH" was a name given to her by the American GIs. So far the nom has one support vote - any more votes? MurielMary (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In consideration of the above discussion, I support posting.--WaltCip (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support after move. The referencing is otherwise there (though I believe there is more that could be added content-wise such as the actual origin of the nickname which I couldn't find easily on a quick google search, but that's not a reason to post RD). --M ASEM (t)
 * Marking as Ready. MurielMary (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post posting note - although "HH" is a name that she did not give herself, she did embrace it and consider it a stage name. Her notability is among English-speaking audiences, not among the Vietnamese (she's not very well-known in VIetnam).  I think we're being hyper-PC in calling her by her birth name, which is rather obscure both in Vietnam and elsewhere.  She is much more well-known as HH.  Consider the Vietnamese language article, which uses the HH moniker, and this news story in the state-run radio station Voice of Vietnam (her former employer).  In it, they clearly refer to "HH" as her "stage name" (nghệ danh).   The story also made many approving references to the name "HH". DHN (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would have been nice to know.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its back at Hanoi Hannah. Taken with the above comment from DHN - If someone genuinely thinks the vast majority of English language sources per WP:COMMONNAME which directly refer to her as Hanoi Hannah should be ignored, they are free to request a move at WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on your talk page regarding this action - suggest you revert changes and open a discussion so that editors can discuss fully (rather than taking action and *then* telling anyone who disagrees to open a discussion!) MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The onus is on those who wish to move it to do so. The page was already at Hanoi Hannah. Perhaps I was less clear above when I said 'any move would be reverted'. When perhaps I should have said 'If you move to this the vietnamese name in spite of the COMMONNAME guidelines I will revert it'. If you want to request a move, do so on the article talkpage or at WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain

 * Oppose for now. I'm underwhelmed by the two sentence update over the recent discovery.  If the recent archaeology could be expanded upon (how was the new determination made?  What new work has been done?  Etc.)  then I would support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the interior part that was built in the Iron Age was smaller. So the blurb is not true. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Medicine)

 * Support in principle on notability but the article cannot appear on the main page in its current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's kinda what ITN/R is for. ;-) -- KTC (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is very poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The autophagy article is updated and good quality, use that as main link until the biography is in shape. Narayanese (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that linking to autophagy as a main article is suitable. The Nobel Prize is specifically for Ohsumi's discoveries related to autophagy mechanisms.  At present the autophagy article does not explain his specific contributions to this field of study.  (Prior to the Nobel win his name didn't even appear in the body of the article.)  I don't believe an article merely providing a general overview of autophagy is sufficiently connected to the Nobel prize to work as the main link.  We often have difficulty with Nobel Laurettes, but nonetheless I believe the best approach is to improve his article to explain why he won the prize and add the missing citations.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll second Dragons flight's determination here. We need a better article on the Laureate in order to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --74.190.108.253 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose laureate's article is what qualifies under ITNR, not some other article. And it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - why hasn't it been featured yet? The only problem I see here is that there are many Nobel prize entries - it would be better if it was one page that lists the winners of the 2016 round instead of having an entry for each of them. I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article (probably the person's one or a new one) - his findings should be elucidated. --Fixuture (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "why hasn't it been featured yet?" You answer your own question: "I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article (probably the person's one or a new one) - his findings should be elucidated."  Spencer T♦ C 13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted, after last-minute improvements. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 NRL Grand Final
Conditional Support Overall the article is not in bad shape and just needs some minor fixes. I've added a few CN tags and the tables aren't clear where their data is coming from. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Jarumain (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me. Thatsgold (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support WP:ITN/R article with updated match summary. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 17:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we clarify the blurb a little bit? For example by adding "Australian" to "rugby league", or expanding NRL to [Australian] National Rugby League? I'm sure many visitors (like me) have not heard of "rugby league", "Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks" or "NRL" before, so this blurb is a bit hard to understand. HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Hungarian Migrant Quota Referendum, 2016

 * Support Right-wing nationalism on the march. Whether enforceable or not, the article is solid (at a quick glance, at least) and this is noteworthy in the migrant crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot see why we would post a referendum that is invalid because of low turnout and therefore is not going to have any effect. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree. But when you have upwards of 90% of the vote going against the EU quotas, legal validity is pretty much irrelevant. The referendum is sending shock waves through the EU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really; it was predictable the vote would go this way. The majority of Hungarians are anti-immigration, and remember the vote was not "should Hungary accept a certain quota of immigrants?" but effectively "Should the EU be able to force Hungary to accept a certain quota of immigrants".  Given that, the only surprising thing is that the turnout was so low. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support covered in multiple major new services (UK, Australia, Qatar, UK again, Europe, USA, etc.) - <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is sufficient reason. Celebrities getting divorced can be reported in those countries too, but doesn't mean it's worth being ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The turnout was below 50% and according to Hungarian law this is insufficient to make the results valid. Brandmeistertalk  07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on impact. The plebiscite failed on turnout, and so nothing will change.  And the thing sending shockwaves through Europe is the migrant crisis itself, not a failed plebiscite.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Unfortunately, my English grammar is quite poor, so I guess the article requires a susbtantial copyedit. In this light, I'd rather not support the candidacy. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons above. For a start, yes, the turnout is too low for it to be valid. Also, this was more an opinion poll than an actual plebiscite, the question was loaded very much with emotive language. Hungary will not be able to legitimately deal with the EU's rules while it remains an EU member - in the mother of all ironies, it remains very much in favour of the EU for the benefit of its own migrants in Britain Valentina Cardoso (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb is misleading, the boycotting side won. Narayanese (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the blurb is terribly misleading. Those who opposed the ruling party in this question were encouraged to boycott the referendum (which was widely considered illegitimate and pointless; the Constitution of Hungary itself states that "No national referendum may be held on ... any obligation arising from an international agreement" ) I would love to see the referendum mentioned on the main page, because it shows that the majority of people definitely refused to be part of Orbán's hate campaign, but the blurb should reflect this, and not the opposite. Thank you. HungaryNews (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose because the turnout is too low. Can still be posted if we run into a serious lack of new blurbs, which was the case a week ago but we have several new nominations now. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine local referendum. Haven't seen any coverage that claims that this has significance outside Hungary. HaEr48 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Voters reject FARC peace deal

 * Support A huge and unexpected setback. EternalNomad (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Yes, this is big news and almost certainly ITN worthy. However, it is quite literally breaking. We have very little information and no idea of what this means. Also the articles have not been updated (as of my writing this). They will need to have this put in along with some RS sourced analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Huge gaps in referencing and I am not even halfway down the article yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait I think the article needs to have enough of "what happens now" (do they go back to renegotiate? do they try to pass without a vote, etc?) to know the implications of this. --M ASEM (t) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The uncertainty of what comes next is a big part of this news story, no need to wait for some resolution. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The unexpected result of the extremely close poll and the immediate aftermath shows that this is worthy for ITN. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The only one of the various articles proposed for possible linking that is in reasonably good condition is Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016. The others have serious deficiencies, especially in referencing. The one on the peace accord also has an orange tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support What a disaster. Neljack (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This will have no effect on the agreement which will stay in force. Brandmeistertalk  07:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it will expire; this deal would have been permanent. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on impact. If the referendum failed, then nothing changes.  The story here is people's disappointed expectations, not a change in law nor (as someone above pointed out) day-to-day life.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. The failure to approve a notable peace deal merits posting; though I'm not sure if we should do so now, or if/when the war resumes. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb 2 – Due in part to extended, high-profile coverage of the FARC deal. Alt2 contains more information. (Vote needs more than one source, though. Two added above.) Sca (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 A sad and unexpected setback Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uusally its just a referendum but this was a major surprise with massive ramification akin to Brexit. I imagine its more in the news in the Spanish language media. Anyways support ALT as it links to the details..Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As does Alt2. Sca (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, its too wordy.
 * Needs more prose reactions: FARC, Santos, Cuba, (Venezuela?), and troublemaker uribe. Also more analysis on the fact that the troubled areas approved it while the central areas less affected rejected it (was on bbxC tv).Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (prefer alt2) Updated article. The vote undoes the recent peace treaty. Narayanese (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - it's big national news and there's a good chance it will lead to more violence. I think either alt is OK. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What are we waiting for? Sca (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally? Prose.  Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 seems to be the best choice for a target article, but only a single sentence of prose has been added since the vote result became known. .  Having a map and vote tally is nice, but there is literally more discussion of what this result means on this page than there is within the referendum article right now.  I understand that the consequences might be uncertain, but even then the article could at least cite some sources saying that.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Colombian peace process is a ridiculously bloated 19,143 words, while the last section reporting the referendum result is a mere 27. However, Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 is a respectable 1,000 words, plus two charts, and seems just barely adequate. True, it would be better to have what in the news business we used to call "instant depth," but the referendum result alone seems very significant. Time's a' wastin'. Sca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - either alts are ok. this has been international news since the results was announced.BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now old news. If no one's going to post, suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt 2.  Spencer T♦ C 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Comment There appears to have been very little consideration given to the quality of what we have now linked on the front page. While the primary target is not bad, the other two linked articles are really not in good shape, especially with referencing. IMO this is represents a regrettable lapse in our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that only the bolded target article(s) must be at "postable on Front Page" standards; any non-bolded links should be clear of patently clear problems but do not need the same rigor. --M ASEM (t) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 Ryder Cup

 *  Conditional Weak Support There are two relatively short sections near the top that need a reference and some of the tables are not very clear on where their data is coming from. And honestly, though I tagged it, I'm not sweating the TV coverage as that is not a claim likely to be controversial. Otherwise it looks good and reasonably well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready in the absence of any oppose votes. Let's post this before it becomes stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 17:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Ethiopian protests

 * Weak Oppose This sounds like something we should have on ITN. Unfortunately there are currently only three sentences on the subject in the linked article. Those three sentences are not only short on details, but seem unsure of the ones they are providing. It's not clear exactly when this happened. Rocks were thrown, or they weren't. Fifty-two were killed, or three hundred. And there is only one source cited. While the BBC is indisputably an RS source, I'd like to have more than one news source if we are posting something to "In the News." It doesn't need its own article but if we could expand this beyond three sentences and add another reliable news source (or two) I think we could post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just Google News it, I've added The Guardian and Reuters to the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Neville Marriner

 *  Weak Oppose  The article is really short and needs expansion. In particular it needs more on his personal life (which currently there is virtually nothing) and it does not even mention his death! I have added a few CN tags, which can probably be covered from the obits. Add some meat to the bones and fill in a few refs and I think we will be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I have added a CN tag and it's still a bit thin, but overall the article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is growing quickly, with more references, as the obits appear. I've added a personal life section, and started an article on his first wife. Edwardx (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I've expanded the article and I believe everything there is now cited (I had to remove some material I could not source). A list of notable recordings would be useful but I don't have time to look into compiling one now. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Daphne Odjig

 * Support no major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready with two support votes plus the nomination (note that Zniber's RD was posted on only one support vote plus the nom). MurielMary (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final

 * It's a rather regional event, and therefore not usually of global interest. The phrase "first time since 1977" is making me curious, though. Is this event significant? ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's included in the recurring items list and can remember it often being included in other years. It was nearly 40 years ago so it's never happened in the time of the World Wide Web. --Greencauldron (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should really read ITN/R better ^_^ I have no reason not to support then. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article doesn't even note what sport its talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Easily corrected. Done. --Greencauldron (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment "retain" in the blurb is unclear. Do you mean that Dublin had the cup, and kept it as a result of the finals match, and that this is the first time that's happened since 1977 - so presumably they have had the cup before but always lost it/not been able to keep it for a consecutive period? Or do you mean that Dublin won the cup for the first time? MurielMary (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they had it in 2015 and retained it in 2016. --Greencauldron (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support looks reasonable enough to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Looks sufficient for an ITNR event to me. I appreciate we're going to have three sports events at the top soon (the below, and the Ryder Cup) but that's what happens occasionally. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, slightly reworded. Dragons flight (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 2016 AFL Grand Final

 * Inclined to support given that this is the club's first premiership win for 62 years and only its second ever, as well as being the first time any team has won from seventh position on the ladder. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I note that the match itself isn't covered in the article, and I think that would have to be rectified before this could be posted. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC) I now support this nomination as a match summary has been added. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as ITN/R. The article isn't perfect, but the quality is certainly adequate enough for ITN standards (long enough, referencing is fine, no other tags). It makes sense to mention the Bulldogs' premiership drought in the blurb, and I've added ALT1 accordingly. (Note: "defeat" rather than "beat" is standard for blurbs, and I've used "title" rather than "premiership" as the latter is an Australianism that might not be understood by all). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  11:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've taken the year out of each blurb, but please, let's try to avoid the usual ENGVAR debate here by selecting a blurb that is English-variant-agnostic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless I'm missing something, I don't see any prose relating to the actual game itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support Overall article quality is not bad though it needs a little expansion per TRM's observation above. Referencing actually looks pretty respectable which is a pleasant change from the norm around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Match summary added by . - <b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>&#160;<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b> 01:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ITN recurring item, which now has paragraphs of prose describing the actual game. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support now suitable prose update has been included. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Rephrased to avoid the ENGVAR problem (i.e. whether a team is singular or plural).  Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When plural team nicknames (such as "Bulldogs" and "Swans") are used, that isn't an issue. —David Levy 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)