Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2017

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

[Posted] 2017 West Side Highway incident

 * Oppose based on article quality which is sub-stub right now. We definitely need to determine if this is a genuine terror attack before posting, although such attacks seem(ed) rare in the United States.  Perhaps the gun control aspiration now needs to be extended to vehicle control, as I have been so often told here at ITNC when Europeans are murdered in such a fashion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for further investigation, but would support if confirmed as terrorism. Despite popular belief terrorist attacks similar to this one are quite rare in the US and the last confirmed terrorist attack with higher death toll seems to be the Orlando shooting last year.  EternalNomad (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Too soon to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait what? There is no information yet, none. The incident is barely an hour old. Come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait Not enough details, the article is a stub, and we are not a news ticker. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support at this time, they labeled it as a terror incident and we just need to provide a decent enough stub/article. We can let it grow as time continues but it most certainly is a notable event for the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait. If it's a terror attack, it will almost certainly be postable, but we know nothing at this point. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mayor calls it act of terror. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fake guns? What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, fake guns. Why is that so difficult to understand?Sir Joseph (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of how simple and effective it would have been to have real guns. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * there is consensual speculation in news media at the moment that it was an attempt at suicide by cop. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count])
 * That's BS, SBC is one person running toward a cop showing a gun. It's not driving and killing other people first. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that makes a lot of sense given how easy it would have been to get hold of a weapon on mainland US soil. If this guy is a terrorist, then he was attempting a martyrdom, but failed, epically. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that makes no sense. Firstly as I said before, suicide by cop just involves one person and a cop. It does not involve any bystanders And you keep repeating the myth that guns are so easy to get a hold of. You do need to actually realize that it's not true. Even if it doesn't fit into your anti-US agenda, we should try to stick to facts here. And of course, who said he was attempting martyrdom? He went out to kill people, and he could have been killed by a cop but he just got shot in his ass. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even CNN says that "Florida's an easy state to buy a gun" but I suppose you'll accuse them of the same so-called agenda you're accusing me of. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, what does that have to do with anything? This is NYC where the guns are illegal. That is why he didn't have a real gun. That is why he used a truck. Your need to argue with everyone and every thing is getting tiresome. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, what's tiresome is this bizarre notion that in a country with around 300 million handguns alone, a "terrorist" couldn't get hold of one of them. That is, frankly, absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in NYC. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Buy it somewhere else in mainland US then. Trivial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't, legally. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @TRM Despite the common perception of the US (and the reality in much of it), firearms are rare in NYC. Handguns and concealed carrying are banned outright unless the holder has a permit (usually only granted to current or former police officers and professional security guards, and a few celebrities who are deemed at risk of stalking), assault weapons have a five-round magazine limit, and the city is full of metal detectors and to get into it one either has to travel by train or drive over a bridge or tunnel, all of which are closely monitored and where vehicles are regularly spot-checked. (The authorities enforce the firearm laws rigorously—when the National Guard were deployed to the city in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, even they had to surrender their firearms.) Particularly if one were a foreign national and thus unable to buy a gun out-of-state and smuggle it in, getting an assualt weapon into central Manhattan probably wouldn't be significantly easier than getting one into London. &#8209; Iridescent 22:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about buying a handgun for a few hundred dollars, or maybe a few for a grand. It's trivial, I absolutely know it is, and to assert otherwise (e.g. that this suspect would only act inside the law) is very peculiar to me.  This guy was driving a hired van and it seems perfectly reasonable to assume he could have obtained any kind of weapon from anywhere on mainland USA.  That he had paintguns is absurd really.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your point still stands but to nitpick he also had a gun who's bullets are like the small ones: 22-45.jpg except much shorter (sphere?) and 0.177 inches wide instead of 0.22. For comparison the big one is fairly powerful as handguns go, some criminals use the small one for executions but they put it in the mouth and a .25ACP is slightly wider but an attacker was once shot till the gun emptied (4 or 5 times) and had enough time to beat the victim within an inch of death before he bled too much to physically continue. A .177 pellet can hunt small creatures and a regulation paintball gun is limited to 205 mph at the muzzle and bruising a human or making him lose an eye. And hurting like Satan in the testicles. They were invented to tag thicker-skinned cattle different colors from far away and are now used for motivating amateur and professional wargamers to play more realistically. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems that he'd been living in Florida for many years. So he could easily have obtained real guns. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would you say it's trivial? Have you ever purchased a gun in NYC or even in the US? It's not trivial, and in NYC it's most certainly not cheap. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not reading what I'm writing so I'm done with you here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * he is god, what he says goes for eternity and admins are there for life "more equal" Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Eight dead, school bus rammed, Governor Cuomo (on the radio, no link) has identified this as a terrorist attack, as has Mayor De Blasio.Yahoo Attacker brandished handguns (at least one was a paintball gun) and was apprehended after being shot in the ass. 21:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment until this is confirmed as terrorism not just domestic disgruntlement at something, it needs to wait, the fact that the perp didn't have real weapons is decidedly strange considering the freely available armoury in every village, town, city in the States. We need answers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The few gun shops in New York City aren't freely available to most non-criminal citizens over 21 so it's not 100%. There's probably too much population density for letting them all buy a gun to be wise though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We get your bias in not posting this, but you do need to actually stick to facts. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you highlight the statements I've made which aren't facts? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The part that firearms are just flowing through the streets and freely available, which is not true at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * laws vary around the country,its not uniformly "easy". That said I have no idea about NYC...all I know is there public school system is well foreign to ours.Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a little more difficult to get firearms in NYC, but certainly not that difficult. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's much more difficult, especially if you do it legally. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Buy it somewhere else in mainland US then. Trivial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the relevance of your point, but obtaining handguns is trivial even if you don't do it in New York state, you can do it elsewhere and hire a van to drive across state lines fully loaded. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bingo. You know why there are so many gun homicides in Chicago even though the state of Illinois has strict gun laws? Neighboring states (like Indiana) have lax gun laws. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't legally buy a handgun out of state. Unless of course you are saying that a criminal won't follow the law, in which case, he'll just buy it illegally anywhere, regardless of laws. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you can legally buy a handgun outside New York state. How strange to assert otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially if you've been living in Florida for seven years. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And how did he bring it to NY? That's illegal. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And to clarify my comment above, especially with regard to Chicago, you can't legally buy a handgun outside your state of residence. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, it would be trivial to buy it in Florida and drive it to New York. That's fundamentally simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you now familiar with interstate transport laws as well? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am. Why would you think the "laws" would prevent someone carrying a weapon across state lines?  How many interstate checkpoints monitor every single vehicle between, say, Florida and New York?  Do you know how many because I do. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait clearly significant (terorist attack near the new WTC!), but article needs time to improve. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, but lean oppose It makes sense that it is being treated by police to expedite enforcement as a terrorist attack due to what the guy shouted plus being NYC, but that doesn't make it a true terrorism incident. Wait until this is factor is determined, and if it is determined to be such, then it might make sense. But if this isn't terrorism related, then oppose posting this. --M ASEM  (t) 22:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Authorities are currently investigating this as act of terror. It would be original research to say it isn't terrorism when there are no reliable sources saying this. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support when the article's up to snuff. Worst terrorist attack in New York since 9/11 (well, I'm sure the suspect will say it was a terror attack, anyway) and of a piece with similar (but deadlier) attacks in Berlin, London, Barcelona and Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Now it is an act of terrorism but with a low fatality count. Until further developments are made, I’m opposed to posting this. Kirliator (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, already significant enough. Article is sufficiently updated and well-sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Now the wait votes predicated on ignorance are now moot, the shooter's name is known, he's an Uzbeki national who shouted allahu akbar, ramming a schoolbus and targetting children, with eight people dead at this point. All authorities are treating this as a terror incident.  Article quality may be at issue, but the overall situation is well understood. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because he was a foreign national from a country that is know to harbor terrorist does not make this a terrorist act; that's bigotry and racism stereotyping right there that we do not do. Treating the investigate as if it was terrorism as to expedite the process and use key powers to assure citizens' safety is fine, but until the driver's motives are established, we should not be considering it as such, innocent until proven guilty and all that. --M ASEM (t) 23:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jesus, Masem, climb down off your high horse. I simply was making the point that the broad facts are now widely known, and the attacker is not an unknown entity.  I made no racist comment, and your personal attack is juvenile projection, not reasoned discourse showing that we should still wait.  The wait rationale is no longer valid and namecalling doesn't alter that. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't directed at you but the broad media and editor stance that are immediately labeling this terrorism before the facts are known, based on a couple of commonalities to terrorism but not conclusive prove. As a neutral work, we are to be better than that. --M ASEM (t) 00:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment was indented below mine, which normally indicates it is to be taken as a response to mine. In any case, the killer was photographed, left a note saying he was killing in the name of ISIS.  What more is needed?  This is ready to go.μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Really? So a guy drives through a bunch of people, gets out and shouts Allah Akbar and you want to wait to find out his motive? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Orlando nightclub shooting started as suspected terrorism but it was determined not be on investigation. Similarly with 2014 Dijon attack, guy shouted same thing but determined no connection. Maybe the guy was drunk off his rocker. --M ASEM (t) 00:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Orlanda shooting is of course a terrorist attack and is being treated as such. I don't know where you're getting your information from. Of course this was a terrorist attack. A person drives a truck purposely killing people and then of course shouts Allahu Akbar can't be anything other than a terrorist attack. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "terrorism" has become significantly diluted since 9/11, which is the problem through this, and in discussion at WT:NOT. The problem is that we're grouping international terrorism, domestic crimes, hate crimes, and a whole bunch of other things under this moniker, and created a type of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" mentality on how to react to such attacks, and all these start to become a blur. And as to your second point, the Dijon ramming was exactly that, including the driver shouting "allah akbar", but classified "not terrorism" by officials. --M ASEM (t) 00:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just the opposite. The US does not call most "terror" incidents as terrorism. That an act on US soil is considered a terrorist attack is certainly notable, especially when the guy leaves a note. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * agree wholly and thanks for saying that. so youre not a klan recruit ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Guy wasted 55 people at a country music festival and no one called it "terrorism". Your racist diatribe might be more welcome at breitbart.com. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please strike out your personal attack. You need to read up on what terrorism is and how the US Justice Department calls things. What political motive did the Las Vegas shooter have? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 01:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not striking anything. If you have a problem with that, take it to ANI so we can discuss your relentless badgering of contributors here and whether or not this ridiculous statement is racist or not "Really? So a guy drives through a bunch of people, gets out and shouts Allah Akbar and you want to wait to find out his motive?". I guess if he'd said "praise Jesus" it'd just be another killing huh? You'd fit right in over at Breitbart. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to stop doubling down on your personal attacks. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 02:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies Sir Joseph. I disagree with your choice of words, but communicated that poorly. This discussion is already closed. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Terrorists attacks in the United States often get wide news coverage, but the problem here is that virtually EVERY terrorist attack in the nation, both big and small, gets this coverage. Not every terrorist attack deserves an ITN nomination. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the first (I think) major terror attack in NYC since 9/11. Of course it's notable. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Law enforcement sources now say the terrorist left a note claiming he is doing the act for ISIS: Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to low death toll. 2600:1015:B123:D26F:DD5F:5CDE:B17F:68F7 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support I would add in addition to what's already been said that the fact that this attack happened on Halloween just adds to the significance of the event. Wingwraith (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose– terrorist attacks in America are noted in media, however they often result in few fatalities such as in the case of this incident, as though the counter force was prepared. 161.6.7.129 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait still wait, I want to see if this survives the news cycle or if it drops for the Manafort indictment we didn't post. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Apart from the 'terror' angle, which is still in question, it's not any more special than a typical day of shootings in the US.--WaltCip (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, and in full understanding of WP:CIVIL I'd like to point out that's a load of horseshit. No one was shot here today except the perpetrator, and no one deliberately mows down strangers indiscriminately "daily". Kindly get your facts straight, mindless anti-American trolling is as disgusting as it is unhelpful. Thanks. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your sole point of contention only that a car was used instead of a gun?--WaltCip (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies WaltCip, I understand you were making a good faith contribution. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing Ready tag There is no consensus at this time to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, was your wait in good faith? If so,the article is no longer a stub, it is fully referenced, all the principle facts are known, we even have a confession by the perpetrator.  Or was your wait actually an oppose?  If that's the case, please change it to oppose.  TRM and ZigZig also voted oppose for now based on lack of information.  All the other waits are, if we assume good faith, supports that have now been satisfied.  We have only two actual opposes, one because not enough blood was shed, and the other a typical bigoted anti-American illegitimate vote.  So that vast majority are in support of posting this, and it is indeed ready to post. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Moving to Support from Wait. The article appears to be in decent shape. Government officials and pretty much all of the reliable sources are calling this a terrorist attack. And it is the lead story in most of the world. That is pretty much the standard around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted given the determination that it is indeed a terrorist attack. Updated the blurb based on the article's infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support it's annoying that some of the support rationales are rather unfair in my opinion (e.g. "worst terrorist incident in NYC since 9/11", even though NYC is only a city, and we just had a more lethal terrorist incident rejected ). However it remains that this particular incident will be reported around the world, it will spawn follow-up articles (I just saw one entitled "Hero NYPD cop stops NYC terrorist from taking more lives"), and it'll continue to attract media attention for a while. I'm also for 'post now', since one of ITN's purposes is to emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Unless the article ends up at AfD if it's not a terrorist incident, whatever the motivations of the attacker are shouldn't matter. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Judy Martz
Oppose not top of her field, and per international precedence thered too manyto post. As it is virtually everything goeson rd.Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed the fact that "super notability" of RDs is no longer debated; that's been the case for many months now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How long have you been here now, Lihaas?--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - "virtually everything" does not got on RD. For a start someone actually has to care enough to nominate. Secondly, the article needs to be of a good enough quality before it can appear in RD. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider this your WP:TROUT slap, . – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ok,was awAy when rd changed.Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's BS. It's been different for years now.  You've commented on nominations dozens of times in those years. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * onmore notable ones (and pre rd deaths), since rd the criteria is lower apparently as mentioned above.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a whole bloody RFC about changing the RD criteria. It was advertised for months before and after the fact.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also explained in every single RD nomination complete with links to the RFC and the clarifying discussion. Seriously, WP:CIR applies here just as much as it does anywhere else. &#8209; Iridescent 20:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere

 * I'm broadly in favour of this item, but it needs to be associated with a meaningful update to a target article. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere hasn't been updated in two weeks. --LukeSurlt c 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone can find a better related article, please do post Sherenk1 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and it's likely going to keep rising, per standard climate change models. It's a trending thing, this is just another marker point on the effects of climate change. We should be looking for more "tangible" aspects, such as when the large ice chunk fell off Antartica recently (which was ITN). --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a good faith nomination, however this was predictable and will likely occur annually within the next coming years. As Masem points out, we should concentrate on more "tangible"aspects. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose item is in the news, but target article has orange tags. Not sure what "tangibles" we should be waiting for: the collapse of the ocean ecosystem? 10 feet of sea level rise? polar bears in sun glasses on the beach at Hudson Bay? Come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - information that people need to know, and might be well suited to DYK, but the fact that there is a growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is hardly news at this stage, and so is not suited for ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The mean has risen by roughly 2ppm per year since the 19th century; it reaches a record high almost every year, other than in years following El Niño events. As the appropriately named Stormy Clouds says, although it's in the news it isn't really news as such; if the concentration starts dropping, would be news. &#8209; Iridescent 19:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Russia probe: Manafort, Gates arrest

 * Oppose until a conviction is evident. In today's political environment in the US, difficult to separate between a legitimate criminal investigation and what amounts to essentially a political perp walk.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. There might be arrests in this case that are notable, but I don't think this is it. It was widely expected, and prosecutors tend to go for the low hanging fruit first. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting mere arrests. If/when someone is convicted, or if it brings down Trump's administration, then we can consider posting. It's premature at this stage. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, the story is a good one, but I would be more in favor of posting at a conclusion rather than at the start. Under normal protocols here, the arrest is usually not the time we post.  There may be situations when it would be, but this isn't it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom per above comments. There is a longstanding and fairly strong consensus at ITN that we don't post arrests. or criminal indictments. If a head of state were indicted I would probably consider an IAR exception but this doesn't come close to that level of notoriety. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and would propose a ITNC nomination moratorium on anything dealing with the probe until if convictions are made, or if an extremely high level official is charged (read: if the probe ends up charging Trump, if it came to that decision). --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would make that proposal on the the talk page. In the meantime I think this discussion can probably be closed. Consensus seems fairly clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ninian Stephen

 * Support, article in vg shape, no tags, international interest also eg UN envoy JennyOz (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article gives reasonable coverage of his career and looks adequately referenced.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Icelandic parliamentary election, 2017

 * Support - Unexpected result. Notable election.BabbaQ (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither one of which is relevant or, arguably, true. Support pending  clean up the one orange tag.GCG (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – Article looks fine, election is ITN/R. The one orange tag should probably be cleaned up first, but otherwise everything seems up to par. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just merge that section into "background"? --LukeSurlt c 10:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article is missing information, that issue wouldn't be solved by removing the section header. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty undefined what information the article needs. Essentially "Background" and "Candidates & campaign" are both "stuff that happened before the vote". If that division wasn't there, would we think something was missing? --LukeSurlt c 10:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, election articles should give some weight to the political issues at hand (such as what the parties stand for, or touchstone issues or the current election) such that the results have context. Technically there are no oppose votes here; but whether you choose to fix it or just delete the section, it's not getting posted with a tag. GCG (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - tag removed after prerequisite expansion to article. Marking as attention needed before it is stale.Stormy clouds (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 12:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] New script for Kazakh alphabet

 * Support, very interesting, and the article has been updated and sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, This is a unique story in an area that doesn't often make the news. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose such stories are indeed rare, but not necessarily unique or unheard of. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support purely to cancel out the above comment, which is possibly the stupidest comment I've ever seen at ITNC (a field with stiff competition). &#8209; Iridescent 18:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the main problem with posting this is the lack of intrigue amongst readers. Sure, it may be "major in Kazakhstan, but to the other ~192 countries, it is not a big deal.  I am not convinced. 161.6.7.34 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. A rare event, interesting, significant to a major language community outside the Anglosphere, and several ranks more interesting than the election returns, sports results, and disasters usually in ITN. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per Iridescent. What's with the two opposes above? I thought the date was getting close to October 31, not April 1. Nsk92 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose perhaps pointlessly, but I'm not actually seeing this "In the news". Online editions re-posting wire stories without any additional analysis or insight in an effort to capture search engine clicks hold no sway for me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support we already have elections on ITNR, which (for smaller countries) seldom show up in the news of other countries. Kazakhstan is not a small country, plus this will impact most people in the country for the foreseeable future. Banedon (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting news, no harm in diversifying the ItN feed somewhat, especially considering the daily impact this will have on many lives. Article is fine. Marking ready given apparent consensus. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted under Oct 27th, as that's when the announcement was made. Could possible be shortened to "The Kazakh language will begin using a Latin script, rather than the current Cyrillic script." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Shortened Wording I think we shouldn’t go way into detail for an ITN bullet. Just stating the simple facts is enough. Kirliator (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Iridescent, but because of the second oppose, which is invalid per "single country" and a clear case of systemic bias. (ie, if the United States began using the Greek alphabet, would he/she support?...) Article has been updated and event is ITNR . -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  20:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is a country changing to a different alphabet in ITNR? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake- wrong abbreviation. I was in a hurry and didn't proofread. Meant Portal:Current events. Original struck. Thanks for catching that. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  03:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Catalan declaration of independence

 * Oppose There is a big orange tag at the top of Catalan independence referendum, 2017 indicating concerns over NPOV. That's a show stopper. Those concerns must be resolved and the tag removed before that article can be linked to the main page, even as a secondary (non-bolded) link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are at least three other articles we could link to instead.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  14:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think Catalan independence referendum, 2017 should be a bold article. In blunt terms, the vote is fairly old news in this story. --LukeSurlt c 14:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking at the bolded article in the alt blurb (Catalan independence), I am still unable to support. There are serious referencing issues that would need to be fixed. For now I stand by my oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support after improvements - Historic vote. Independence declared. No matter what happens in the next few days Catalonia is independent as of right now.BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is basically a new country creating event. bd2412  T 13:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment bold link the referendum I guess but it's last update is "A debate over a possible declaration of independence went ahead as planned in the Parliament of Catalonia later that day and into the next morning,[113] simultaneous to the Spanish Senate debating the enforcement of Article 155" and doesn't state any declaration has been made. Worse still, once article 155 has been invoked, the constitutional crisis should be bolded, but it's orange tagged. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To which "constitutional crisis" article are you referring? 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis is not orange tagged.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as this is a historic event that garners central attention in world politics at the moment. I think we need a new article 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence and substantial work should also be done on Catalan independence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Obvious quality issues before posting. This is definitely an ITN point, following a similar roadmap as Brexit (the gov't following on the people's referendum to leave Spain in this case). --M ASEM (t) 14:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as hugely significant event. Article needs some work, but I'm sure it can be sorted out. This is Paul (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Article 155 was enacted. So there is no legal political representation in Catalonia, according to Madrid. It should be also reflected in blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is just Spain counter move as of right now. It doesnt mean anything until actual stuff has been made.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jenda H makes a valid point. I think we need to tread carefully here regards NPOV. Right now we are presenting only one side of a contentious issue in the proposed blurbs. Of course this is a moot issue until the article quality problems are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 *   Obvious candidate, but I think it needs an article called 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence. The referendum was four weeks ago. Sca (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose All of the currently existing, proposed articles have major issues all noted above. If someone fixes one of those up, or writes a new article to use for this, please let us know so we can assess the situation again.  Right now there is nothing we can be proud to direct readers to.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not true, neither the Catalonia or Spain articles have any orange tags. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither article has a sufficient updated for the event. The Catalonia article, for example, has a 1-sentence update.  From the ITN criteria, and I quote, "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable."  Expand it first, THEN tell me you fixed the problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well since Ed Johnston fully protected Catalonia for a week, (which would be the logical target if no 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence article is created) that's not going to be updated before people start complaining about it being stale. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then fix one of the other articles. There are 18 ways of getting this story posted, none of them involves bitching about it not yet being posted.  All of them involved improving an article we can post on the main page.  You've got many options, but telling me about how one option isn't working right now is not getting this posted.  The very minute YOU make an article worthwhile to go on the main page by YOUR efforts to improve it, it will be posted.  Unless and until YOU do that, it won't be.  You could also merely wait for someone else to do that work, but then you can't THEN complain it hasn't been posted yet.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, let's just say, for sake of arguement, you have already written a fantastic, several paragraph-long, superbly referenced update to the Catalonia article, but it's protected so you cannot add it to the article. There are mechanisms to fix that too.  Just add your update to the article talk page and ask an admin to add it.  It'll be as good as done.  Since I assume you already did that (because if you hadn't you wouldn't have complained, right?) then it should be easy to go to Talk:Catalonia and request that your articulate, well-referenced text be put into the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jayron, (and all other interested parties), what is your view of the Catalan Republic (2017) article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Judging by the flag of Russia it displays, my view is it needs (semi) protected. All Catalonia stuff does today. GCG (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's barely above stub-class. There's precious little content there.  Were the history section was fleshed out with referenced text describing the background of the independence movement, through the Declaration of Independence, it would be better.  If we had that, so that interested readers could learn enough historical background to provide them with context to gain a useful understanding of the situation, we'd have some postable content.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I support in principle on notability. I have no views yet on on article quality. But I favour the first altblurb, precisely because it doesn't mention the referendum. The article on the declaration of independence will mention the referendum, which is enough. To include the referendum in the blurb without qualification (such as illegal/unconstitutional referendum largely boycotted by Catalan Unionists) seems POV, conferring on the declaration of independence a spurious appearance of moral legitimacy such as it would have had if it had been a proper referendum such as the Scottish and Quebec referendums. But if we try to put in qualifications we may have space problems, and accusations of being POV the other way, and further difficulty in obtaining consensus. So the best solution seems to be to just neutrally report the undoubted fact that the Parliament has voted to declare independence. Also in terms of actual news the Spanish Senate's vote today to impose rule by Madrid, and/or EU/Nato/US declarations today that they will only deal with Madrid, seem far more deserving than the referendum to be included in the blurb (though simplest is to include none in the blurb, and leave all to be mentioned in the article).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - one of the most notable events to happen in Western Europe for a very long time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 *    – Catalan Republic (2017) – Obviously it's short but could be expanded as story develops. If there's a consensus to get this out there pronto I could support. Sca (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My question was really only one of principle. I see it's suddenly got a lot bigger. But Jayron has already crossed it off his list below. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, after fixing any problems with the article, of course. Count Iblis (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, this is world news, we are witnessing the birth of a new nation. Civciv5 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb: This is major news; there could be a new country soon. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 19:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, whatever article we use; this is major (well, not méjor in the slightest if you're Spain) Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, I actually came here to nominate the thing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - added alt3 -- KTC (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible target articles
For the sake of simplicity, because this is getting really messy, I'm creating this subsection as a workspace to allow us to come up with a working blurb to post. Clearly, this is BIG NEWS. But we're stuck in a situation where we don't seem to be able to come to an agreement on which article to post. Please feel free to add to this list as needed, and make any fixes to these articles we need to make.


 * 2017 Catalonia declaration of independence: Stub article, not enough context for posting
 * Catalan independence: Referencing issues, not updated
 * Catalonia: insufficient update
 * Catalan independence referendum, 2017: neutrality tag, also about the wrong event, not sufficiently updated re: Oct 27 events
 * Catalan Republic (2017): Too short, needs to be expanded with historical context
 * 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis: Possibly about the wrong event, though well written, tagless, and suffiently updated ?

From my POV, the best target is the Spanish Constitutional Crisis article, since it's only problem is that it isn't directly about this event. I'd prefer one of the others, but they all need some work. Lets use this as a workspace to see what we improve, and then decide on a blurb. It's become too messy up above. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to using Catalan Republic (2017) as the featured article. It is at least start quality and rapidly improving, so meets our guidelines, and includes a link to 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis prominently in the history section. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually think the constitutional crisis article is the correct one. It has the most background, a good history of the whole sad saga, and is in decent shape. It doesn't at present actually say that article 155 has been invoked, and is has this awful sentence: "In the end Puigdemont chose not to dissolve Parliament, allegedly because of the Spanish government's refusal to call off the Article 155 procedure even were an election was called by Puigdemont.". The others are forks, likely to become POV battle grounds and get merged following an AFD in a few weeks. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the article title (as distinct from its contents) POV? After all Spain will scream that there's no such thing as the Catalan Republic (2017), so by using that title we may give the impression that we are siding with the secessionists. Do we have any precedents or guidelines, and can somebody come up with a more neutral title (that may not be easy)? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate why you might think the the article title is POV, but it is in keeping with the other Catalan Republic articles. On balance, I think it is not falling foul of WP:NPOV with that title. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your informative reply, Mjroots. Having briefly looked at the other articles I now think you're probably right.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The title isn't a breach of NPOV; we're not endorsing a particular group, just using the name they give themselves. There are numerous other articles on Wikipedia on unrecognized states, all of which use the name they give themselves (Republic of Artsakh, Luhansk People's Republic, Republic of Logone, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc) except in a few cases where there's a genuine WP:COMMONNAME in English for the unrecognized entity (Taiwan, Somaliland, Transnistria…). &#8209; Iridescent 10:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your informative reply, Iridescent. As I already told Mjroots I now accept that it probably isn't POV.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – No. 1 story in Western world on Friday, Oct. 27. Any of the extant blurbs will do. Sca (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article could be in better shape like many nominees, but I think it’s good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for linking to Catalan Republic, how is this not already on the front page, this news is among the most noteworthy events of the year, if not decade Civciv5 (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "This is not already on the front page" because it is not yet ready for posting, nor is there agreement on what exactly should be posted. ITN is not a news ticker, but a way to highlight decent articles that have gained consensus for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt blurb III / IV
ALT III should be posted. It is factually correct and neutral. Neither article has any major issues, and both are updated. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point, Mjroots. But to be accurate, shouldn't that altblurb say The Parliament of Catalonia (perhaps with Parliament wikilinked to Parliament of Catalonia and Catalonia still wikilinked to Catalan Republic (2017)? Otherwise there's the problem of whether that Parliament properly speaks for Catalonia when it's apparently exceeding the powers granted to it by the Spanish Constitution and laws, and whether it's then POV of us to equate the two. I've now added an altblurb IV to show this, though obviously there's a blurb length issue, and perhaps other issues as well.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now also wikilinked the Spanish response to 2017 Spanish Constitutional Crisis in altblurb IV.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt IV would also have my Support. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. It is clear this needs to be posted, but the Parliament of Catalonia and UDI articles are not fit to be linked to the main page, so I've posted with a combination of Alt2/3/4. If any admin thinks I've made a horrible error, feel free to fix it without pinging me.  Ditto the flag, I haven't included it, but feel free to if you think it's important.Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting: Bravo! Catalonia seems quite adequate. Sca (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * what is the problem with the Catalan Republic article that prevents it being the bolded link? Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I used the link from Alt2, not Alt3.  I'll change it. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Kite.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-posting

 * There is currently an error report at Main_Page/Errors about linking Catalonia to Catalan Republic (2017) instead of the generic article at Catalonia. Alex Shih (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an error. The CR article is of an acceptable standard, whether on not individual editors support or object to the UDI. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis

 * Support just removed my own nomination. This is the better target article anyway. Banedon (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning wait The by-election is looking to be held on Dec. 2, which is not too far away (relatively). There's clearly something ITN in all this, just think this might not be the right point. --M ASEM (t) 04:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is we'll be posting the results of a by election - could set a dangerous precedent. Banedon (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support'. This sort of thing seems rare to me.  I think the removal itself is more noteworthy than the election, though I don't see what bad precedent posting the election would make(the precedent of posting by-elections or special elections where a politician was removed by a court?) and we don't often deal in 'precedent' anyway, considering each event on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a very rare democratic occurrence in a major nation that will force a by-election to decide the future of the Australian government. Clearly worth of ITN, and the article is fine. If it needs to go up again in December, then let it be so. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, significant and unique occurrence in Australian politics, detailed and up-to-date article associated with it. The decision today to disqualify the Deputy PM and 4 Senators is the key aspect. Liguer (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Although Australia is known for frequent changes in their Prime Ministers following internal coups this crisis is a rare and unusual occurrence for a democracy. AusLondonder (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support decent article about political crisis. Notable and currently in the news.--Jenda H. (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix this please. This is factually inaccurate. The government has not lost its legislative majority - it holds 75 of 149 seats which is still a one-seat majority. See for example here. Some journalists have been getting a bit over-excited but it's embarrassing having this on our front page. See this for Kevin Bonham's detailed reasoning, including an apt comparison to the Cook government of 1913-14. Frickeg (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ERRORS is the better place to get this corrected. I think this was perhaps posted too hastily - it does take some wind out of the story if the government has not in fact lost its majority, but I see some people above are arguing the removal was the more noteworthy event anyway so I'm not calling for this to be pulled.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I quote from your article "Joyce’s exit strips Malcolm Turnbull’s government of its one-seat majority in the House of Representatives for now, but he could return through a byelection on 2 December." (bold mine) The article itself notes that Turnbull's claim of maintaining a majority is based on the technicality that the non-political Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, who only votes in case of a tie.  The Guardian itself discounts Turnbull's claim.  If you're going to make an argument, find one that does not directly contradict it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article also says that Turnbull can rely on MPs to provide confidence and supply so it's not actually going to make much difference. The government is not going to fall.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, saying without qualification that the Government has lost its majority is probably misleading. Barnaby's seat is vacant, it hasn't shifted into opposition/crossbench hands, so there are 149 seats in play instead of 150. The government still control 75 seats which is more than half; they effectively still have a majority. The main story should be the disqualifications. I would prefer a blurb something like: "The High Court of Australia finds the deputy prime minister and four senators are disqualified from Parliament due to their dual citizenship". Liguer (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it down. It is not correct and not newsworthy enough for the main page. 216.8.141.183 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to WP:ERRORS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . I've removed the contested part. The article quality has still not been challenged, just the blurb, so I have altered the blurb to remove any debatable text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pull: This was posted earlier today after just 7 hours with a dramatic but misleading claim that the Government had lost its majority (in effect we posted FAKE NEWS). This has now been corrected. But the misleading claim was highly relevant to the notability issue, and the fact that it went largely unnoticed or at least unmentioned until too late says quite a lot about the way we sometimes reach overhasty unwise consensuses here. As far as I know there is nothing all that unusual about elections in various countries having to be re-run because of irregularities, and often with much more at stake than in this case (for instance the last Austrian Presidential election and the recent Kenyan elections). Here all we have is a somewhat unusual reason for a bi-election, which hardly seems ITN worthy. Also pulling the item seems like a useful way to discourage this kind of undesirable behaviour in future, while failure to pull rewards undesirable behaviour, and will thus tend to encourage such behaviour in future, with damaging consequences for Wikipedia's credibility. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Had I been awake during this discussion I'd have voted oppose, as parliamentary-level issues are not routinely posted and this is really a procedural matter. I cannot imagine, for example, that we'd post it if the current trial of a NJ senator ends up resulting in his removal from office.  So I support Pull -ing the item.  But we don't pull items to punish undesirable behavior, we post and pull based on the merits of the item itself. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, μηδείς. I don't know whether or not "we don't punish" is a written rule somewhere, though even if it is, I tend to think that, per WP:IAR, we should ignore any rule that prevents us improving the Encyclopedia, and any rule that rewards bad behaviour seems to do that. But in any case we both seem to agree that the item should also be pulled on its merits, on grounds of insufficient notability now that the original dramatic claims about a lost majority have been removed. Meanwhile it might help if you re-formatted your reply so that your support for Pull doesn't become almost invisible in the middle of your post, where it is liable to go unnoticed by admins who normally expect to see such support at the start of a post.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: In many ways it's not really the loss of the Deputy Prime Minister's seat that is the most significant thing about this event. The ramifications of the High Court decision will have far greater implications. It's possible, even likely, that now that the High Court has ruled on how the eligibility clause must be interpreted, that more sitting MPs will be given extreme levels of scrutiny and suddenly find themselves also to be dual citizens and therefore ineligible to sit in Parliament. This is crystal balling, I know, but there will almost certainly be a snowball effect over the coming weeks and months that could see several more MPs ejected from Parliament. Whether this will trigger the fall of the Government and/or a fresh election is unknown, but a possibility. The longer term ramification is that the Australian Constitution may be untenable in its current form - the Government has already signalled its intention to review and possibly amend the Constitution because of this High Court ruling. The High Court decision is the critical point in an ongoing constitutional crisis which will not be fully resolved for some time now. I'm commenting for full information - I don't have a strong opinion of keep/pulling the item, though I lean in favour of it being significant enough for ITN. It's certainly the most significant event in Australian politics for 2017 (so far). -dmmaus (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But as you yourself say, the possible ramifications are basically irrelevant, being WP:CRYSTAL. And "the most significant event in the politics of a particular country so far this year" is a rather subjective judgment (who decides that it's more significant than, say, the decision to hold an advisory referendum on gay marriage, or any number of developments in things like jobs or homelessness or health or education that probably ultimately affect ordinary people a lot more than the fate of a few politicians?). And if it were used as a criterion for inclusion in ITN we could expect perhaps 2 to 5 such claims per country per year (per WP:BIAS we are expected to pretend that all countries are equal, though it would be even worse for Australia if we used "all persons are equal" instead, leading to a huge increase in articles about China and India), leading to another 400 to 1000 more candidate articles, most of which would seem pretty trivial and unimportant to most of our readers (as I suspect this one probably probably already does).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this had happened in India, a multi-party democracy, I would have supported inclusion here. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Pull, FWIW. I do not believe this rises to the level of ITN. Parliamentarians being disqualified may be relatively uncommon in the US, but in the more typical multi-party democracies, it is exceedingly common. The only reason this is in the news at all is because it occurred within the anglosphere, in a country which receives news coverage fairly disproportional to its population, and because this threatens the government. If the government actually falls, I would support this. Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you name any other instances similar to justify your claim this is an "exceedingly common" event? AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rod Culleton and Bob Day are two recent examples.  Chrisclear (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chrisclear. And what this means is that contrary to the claims of this being almost unprecedented in the free world (which is the only remaining 'justification' for posting now that the claim that the government has lost its majority has been removed as misleading), we have 2 similar cases earlier this year in Australia itself. All the more reason for pulling the item, though at this stage I'm not expecting that to happen. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Release of JFK assassination documents

 * Oppose Interesting, but not ITN type material. --M ASEM (t) 03:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Mostly per . I would support if later on there are some significant developments from the release of these files that would warrant an separate, individual entry, which seems quite unlikely. Alex Shih (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose too long ago in history. Banedon (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comment is not constructive. Please stop trolling. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * contributes in good faith I think, so "trolling" may be a bit harsh, even though non-constructive curt replies should generally be avoided. Alex Shih (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with my editing, ANI is that way (or read WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE). Banedon (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending a dedicated article. I'd probably be a one man army here, but the release of classified info on such an event for the first time since 1963 is both newsworthy and of interest. Brandmeistertalk  09:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I would support posting a specific revelation from these documents if newsworthy enough, but I don't think their mere release is enough. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the orange idiot is typically taking credit for processes started before he got there, but the story is in the news, the article is decent enough. President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 might make a better target, it has more details about the release. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of significance. There aren't going to be any revelations in these documents.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - historic event. Has recieved attention world wide. Already analysis released.BabbaQ (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing of real consequence appears to have been revealed. The usual conspiracy theorists are looking for anything that will bolster their beliefs. If anything of that nature actually is discovered (not holding my breath) I will reconsider my oppose. Absent something that looks like a smoking gun or some other bombshell revelation all we are doing is putting a fifty year old crime in the current events section of the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless some crazy revelation is discovered, which is unlikely, this is not significant, and mostly just satisfying curiosity. Also Trump blocked some of the documents at the last minute per CIA and FBI request. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Sakharov Prize

 * Oppose per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Banedon (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "normally" being the operative word. Great input! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall even noting Nobel prizes being posted using this paradigm, to ensure the ITN section remained relevant and to keep target articles at a high quality. Perhaps just opposing is easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, "Unless otherwise noted" is the operative part. And clearly, there is nothing noted at the entry on the Sakharov Prize. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a correct interpretation. Nothing has been "otherwise noted" so it's "normally" the winner whose article is emboldened. "normally".  And in this case we don't have an article to embolden so we link the featured list instead.  "there is nothing noted at the entry" is untrue as well.  It's received a minimal update.  If you wanted to help improve it, feel free! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close until there is an article or substantial update. This is just a row in a table.
 * Oppose per Banedon, the work simply has to be done first. My sympathies lie with the opposition, I have a Venezuelan friend, but the forms must be observed. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support If the “work to be done” is writing Venezuela’s democratic opposition from scratch that seems unreasonable to me. In a situation like this where the prize is awarded to several disparate groups rather than an individual we should just target a Featured List-quality article which is of interest to our readers.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, ^^^^^ that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't need to be an article on Venezuela’s democratic opposition. But at the minimum an article that gives some context and explains why they were awareded the Sakharov prize. Some individuals are mentioned, most with no links or only red links. And those that have article, well, there is not even an update on the award in these articles. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix that. This is Wikipedia, you are welcome to join in and improve things you feel need improving. Or I suppose you could just complain about it.  Your choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Remind me who nominated this news item? Right, it was you. So maybe you fix it? And next time, preferably, you do that before you nominate. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I updated the article I nominated. Preferably check these things before attempting the moral high ground.  I can see you're not interested in helping though. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  We really should have an article dealing with the current crisis in Venezuela that could be targeted. That said, I'd be OK with the proposed target article if there was at least some level of discussion in the text. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It's not ideal but I think we can go with the current target at this point. See below discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , I added a para to the lead to try to cover this, and it kind of works for future similar situations where we don't have a suitable article for the recipient, imho. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , woah, I pinged a sock. Ouch, sorry dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support because ... really? Come on. Let's show off the FL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which would not pass the feature list process anymore, given the recent addition and WP:LEAD. I appreciate RamblingMan's eagerness to get this posted, but really, why not just create a new article, Sakharov Prize 2017, or update existing articles on the crisis in Venezuela (e.g. 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis). Just dumping text into the lead, without any consideration of appropriate weight, is not the way to go. Again, I guess no one doubts that this is newsworthy. There are more than enough articles that could be updated in a matter of minutes, so we could have both on the main page. A featured list AND an article with an appropriate udpate, giving some context and explaining why the prize was awarded. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm done responding to this IP. I've done enough here to get this into ITN, "just dumping text"?  Forget it.  I couldn't care less either way if you personally disagree, as I'm not seeing you do anything whatsoever to improve Wikipedia other than complain here.  So farewell "IP", until the next time you re-appear avoiding scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)→
 * Sorry if I stressed you out. Didn't mean too. But your belittling comment (since then removed), did not exactly generate a lot of good will. Anyway, I pointed out a few possible target articles and that was meant to be of help. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not stressed at all. Your comment was hilarious and I stand by the fact I think it was the funniest thing (especially from an IP avoiding scrutiny) I've read for a while.  No target articles that you claim to have pointed out are viable at this time, but thanks for your efforts!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ed, linking the article itself is risky because it means the same article can be featured next year. Not so long ago was Nobel week, and there were several Nobel Prizes not featured because the winners' articles weren't good enough . What posting this means is that, in the future, if the winners' articles aren't good enough we can still directly link Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and we can do that every year. If you've not seen it, there was a RfC for TFA earlier this year about whether it was even OK to rerun a formerly-featured article . Consensus came down to requiring 5 years of intervening time, which is way longer than reposting Sakharov Prize every year. I remain opposed to this. Banedon (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, everyone's conveniently overlooking the fact that this article has twice been linked as the target for ITN, including last year, for precisely the same reason, exercising the caveat noted at ITNR for precisely the right reason. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment so now I've tried to address the immediate concerns by adding a para to the lead about the most recent winner, the IP is setting about removing it all. I'm done with this, and the pathetic behaviour of the scrutiny-avoiding IP, I was just doing my best to ensure Wikipedia and its readers got the information it deserved, but hey, with the TRM-haters and this IP, no chance.  Next time I'll ask someone else to nominate the article.  Cheers all! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no point in complaining about an IP "evading scrutiny" when registered users are totally anonymous, yet IP users show their location. In any case "hahahaha" and a huff, oddly enough, are not a refutation of 81's reasoned and not unilateral oppose. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I can fully appreciate the difficulty of what an appropriate target article is here and how to reflect that as a target as the awardee of the prize without creating a nightmare of a blurb or the like. The situation as is: the section in the prize's page (though which could be in the Notes for the award) is sufficient update for this very unique instance. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but as noted above, it's not "very unique (sic)", we have linked the list twice, 2011 and last year, for the very same reason. Everyone here voting oppose has conflicted with me in the past, but as found in the latest Arb drama, I always have content in my best interest, especially the main page, why we wouldn't apply the same logic as we did last year or in 2011 is beyond me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your concern for content and thank you for your considerable contributions. But the basic argument here is that all ITNR really requires is the "quality of the article and the update to it." If we target the winner, we can consider the quality of that winner's article. If we target the list, we don't have a quality update worthy of ITN. GCG (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats why we have the caveat at ITNR. Unless we have an updated suitable target article, the list is just fine, as proven in 2011 and 2016.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted The 'democratic opposition' does not exist as a single entity, as it covers all opposition parties and political prisoners. As such there will never be a corresponding article as the grouping only exists in the context of the prize. Stephen 22:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out above, 2017 Sakharov prize would have been the right target article. That no one was willing to create this article is not a valid reason to ignore the rules. What we have instead is a degraded feature list article, which still provides almost no context or explanation. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: um, there already is a catch-all article on Venezuela's democratic opposition - the Democratic Unity Roundtable. Why couldn't the update be incorporated there? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do that update. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that article cover all the parties awarded the prize? Stephen 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pinito del Oro

 * Support Article is short, but what is there is well referenced and well written. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A nice little article that is decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - an ok article. Notable person.BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone? This has been siting ready to go for nearly 24 hours now........... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] First possible interstellar comet

 * Oppose until it's confirmed. It seems like the main evidence in favour of it is its orbit, but that alone shouldn't suffice. After all, it's possible it's a solar system object that was flung into a hyperbolic orbit by an interaction with a planet. Banedon (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That has been ruled out quite conclusively: Its orbit is inclined 122 degrees to the ecliptic, and only intersects it at Earth's and Mercury's orbits during the last month or so. The rest of the time it's been in the middle of nowhere, further from any planet than Earth is from Jupiter. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: Pretty much the only doubt of its interstellar nature remains in its orbit. There's a miniscule (but still present) chance that it might not be interstellar, and at this point it's just astronomers trying not to make such a bold claim so soon.
 * Do you have a source that explicitly discusses the possibility that it's a solar system object? A technical source is fine. Banedon (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there aren't many sources on the object yet. Here's another nail in the coffin though (and I'm not sure how to update this to reflect that): The object has been confirmed to be asteroidal in nature. That means it can't have originated from the oort cloud or similarly distant areas, and must have either been in the inner regions of a solar system for long enough to completely exhaust its ice reserves, or formed within the ice line (which an object on such a large orbit just doesn't do).
 * I ran a simulation using the current barycentric elements, and its elements in 1600 AD, when it was 2250 AU from the Sun, had an eccentricity of 1.179 +/- 0.015 (fitting with the error on the observations). Barycentric elements are calculated from JPL horizons and the uncertainty was calculated from the 46 available observations using find_orb. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but WP:NOR applies. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source which says it is asteroidal in nature? I'm not familiar with the reason for why such an object cannot be from the Oort cloud either - comets come from the Oort cloud so I'd expect an interstellar comet to also be like an Oort cloud object. If being asteroidal in nature rules out this object as coming from the Oort cloud, wouldn't it also rule out this object as a comet? I also think we're in OR territory as well. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/mpec/K17/K17UI3.html
 * It's a little bit complicated to explain, but this object is indeed not a comet. It's apparently an interstellar asteroid. An inactive galaxy couldn't have come directly from the outer solar system (or any outer stellar system) because it would have had large amounts of ice, as almost always forms for objects as far out as the Oort Cloud- see: There is no object with an aphelion over 300 AU and a perihelion less than 2 AU that hasn't been observed to outgas. The only solution is this thing formed/orbited in an inner stellar system. Considering neither Earth nor Mercury have enough gravity to pull this thing (and hold it) onto such a large orbit, there is effectively no explanation other than an approach from another system. PS Here is an orbital calculation using all available observations- https://projectpluto.com/temp/2017u1.htm . At this point, even a hyperbolic orbit would require systematic observing errors from multiple observatories that are so unlikely that I don't think calculating the probability is really possible. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would still wait till the astrometry is confirmed. It's not seeing much coverage in the usual news sources (Reuters BBC etc) as well, and some still refer to it as a comet. Banedon (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * wait until we know more (though at that point, it might not really be "news" anymore. Science is slow, sadly). ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure about this. It's a cool discovery, but seems to still be developing (e.g. it was officially renamed as an asteroid just today last night). We also usually require publication in a peer-reviewed journal before posting science stories; thus far this just has a bunch of minor planet circulars. It may be better to wait until full details are published in a journal paper. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article itself is short, confusing, and self-contradictory. The lead doesn't mention the interstellar nature (which if it is to be the most important thing about it; then should be more prominent, n'est ce pas?).  Secondly, the article first mentions that it's an interstellar comet without mentioning when it was so designated, THEN it mentions in the next section that it isn't even a comet, and that on October 25 (no year?  October 25 when?) it was redesignated as an asteroid and not a comet.  The article content is a travesty, and has no business being shown to the public as a worthwhile article to read.  It needs a LOT of work by someone very knowledgable in this rather technical issue before it is main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs a lot of work and generally concur with your view. However, it does state the interstellar nature twice in the first two sentences, as long as the reader understands the terms. A comet on a hyperbolic orbit is an interstellar comet - those terms are effectively synonyms. And an orbit with eccentricity >1 is hyperbolic, by definition. Of course that use of jargon should be improved. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've edited the lead to make this clearer, but don't have time to work on the rest of the article. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's called A/2017 U1 and doesn't say precovery, what year do you think it would be? I appended 2017 to the vague date. It's obvious to astronomers from the article alone that it was named a comet without any coma actually being seen because the orbital parameters are not asteroid-like. Of course it'd be nice if the article actually explains things like this. When a very good telescope couldn't see a coma it was redesignated A/2017 U1 (not 2017 UCapitalletter(number) cause this is how it works when misidentification happens the other direction (i.e. C/2018 AB102)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "obvious to astronomers"... So Wikipedia exists solely to serve astronomers who already know this stuff, and don't need it? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the article should explain these things. And you can hardly expect an astronomer to know even a few facts for each of almost 1 million known asteroids. The earliest known image of it is from October 18 per one of the article's sources so someone that hasn't followed big asteroid news in the past few days would be able to not don't need it (and no, that doesn't mean this is stale, even at an eccentricity of almost 1.2 it takes an observation arc of some time to have high probability that eccentricity is in fact more than 1) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "the article should explain these things" So then make it explain things.  Every problem I have noted is fixable.  You could, you know, fix it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's 6 hours later than I slept yesterday, I'm very sleepy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait Per Popular Mechanics there appears to be many more telescopes now following the hypothetical trajectory to confirm the out-of-plane orbit. This will take time as others have noted, but it's still well in visible range, so we'll likely have conformation "soon" (months I'm guessing?). Once there's some type of corroboration, then we should be good to post this (likely a new nomination). --M ASEM (t) 14:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the source & article, it has now been determined to be an asteroid, not a comet, so the blurb and link to interstellar comet no longer makes sense. Is an interstellar asteroid as significant? Mamyles (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * *More* significant. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Fats Domino

 * Oppose Woefully undersourced (and preempting the discussion, oppose a blurb here too). --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Was about to nominate this, then saw how much referencing was required. Oppose for now, a long way to go. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think its good to nominate, even if the article isn't ready. ITN/C at its best can be a very effective article-improvement workshop. --LukeSurlt c 15:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support now the workshop has completed its task...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me to a project to improve the articles of octogenarian living legends? Get out ahead of the next one...GCG (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know of a project as such, but Jerry Lee Lewis and especially Johnny Mathis both need a ton of work if you're looking for something to edit.yorkshiresky (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  For those who remember the thrill of his music, he might be blurbable. Sca (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  17:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you support? Posting it now in its inadequate state? Posting it in general, which needs no support? Saying more than just "support" would probably be advisable so people understand what your motivation or even your point is. 91.49.85.74 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting it now. p  b  p  13:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious oppose it’s tagged for refs, so obviously not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – With 50 footnotes now, it looks well-referenced. Sca (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref count doesn't matter, it's where they are used. One section remains nearly unsourced but save for one ref, which is not sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 22:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle He was an influential musician. I'll let others decide when the page is ready. I think this should be mentioned, though. TenorTwelve (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above concerns over referencing. This is gonna need some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 *   Fats Domino (89), US-amerikanischer Musiker († 25. Oktober); Nécrologie: Fats Domino.; 24. oktober - Fats Domino (billedet), amerikansk R&B- og rock and roll-sanger og musiker (født 1928); Nyligen avlidna: Fats Domino; Halálesetek a közelmúltban: Fats Domino – Sca (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, those Wikipedia’s are renown for posting completely inadequately referenced articles to their main page, it’s a good job we don’t follow suit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per TRM, the fact that someone else does something really terrible does not create a death-pact for us forcing us to do the same terrible thing. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've frequently been terrified by frightfully deficient documentation on these Wikis. It scares me to death. I have nightmares about it. Sca (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The subject is topical and the article appears presentable to me despite technical considerations. George Slivinsky (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as there are at least 7 citation needed tags, the article is not presentable ... --Tone 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done gotten rid of one, but the current tally is 10. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we list those 10 facts and decide if they can be referenced - or perhaps just omitted, as less important? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. That's a perfectly valid way of addressing referencing issues in an article. To find those statements, just looks for the "citation needed" tags in the article. --LukeSurlt c 15:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Her you go:
 * Domino had further hit singles between 1956 and 1959 - should be sourcable
 * "On December 18, 1957, his hit recording of "The Big Beat" was featured on Dick Clark's American Bandstand." - that can be dropped if nobody finds a ref
 * Recordings for Imperial - should be sourcable
 * Repair to home 2006 - can be dropped
 * "Fats Domino Day in New Orleans" needs a source!
 * the instrumentalists should be sourced
 * "Critical acclaim for Album "Alive ..." - would be nice but is not critical
 * Halls of Fame should be sourcable: the two missing Louisiana, Delta, but no time to check if already there, or to format
 * concert for victims of Kathrina - would be nice but can be dropped
 * Hot 100 1968 - same.
 * Please strike what gets solved one way or the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. Thanks to all who worked on referencing the article (26 --> 76 total references in the past 2 days); referencing is complete and there aren't any more CN tags.  Spencer T♦ C 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting: Thank you all for the collaborative effort. Alex Shih (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting kudos to all involved. THIS is an example of how ITNC is supposed to work.  Well done all.  You've done Wikipedia proud.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jayron, fully agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well done indeed! --Tone 11:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Glenn Barr

 * Support I found one statement that does need a source, and tagged it for citation, but that's about it, so support presuming that gets fixed. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations. In a problem symptomatic of many articles about figures in the Troubles, the portion of the article detailing his actions is muddled due to POV concerns, but that did not stop Martin McGuinness getting posted. Aside from this, article is fine.
 * Comment is this thing on???? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Robert Guillaume

 * Oppose until filmography is sorted. The rest of the article is decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the filmography section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be well-sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the filmography section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not anymore... Funcrunch (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The additions of several sources to the end of the filmography section take care of immediate problems I noted, and I don't think the lack of a TV or stage roles (when it lacked it to start) isn't a problem to block posting as RD. --M ASEM (t) 22:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China

 * I need some more clarification on why this is a big deal. (some more sources would be nice too) We wouldn't post a meeting of the Republican National Committee(the party that currently controls the executive and legislative parts of the US government). 331dot (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I've added two ALT blurbs for consideration. This article needs some more work though. Alex Shih (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more sources. In short, as the Communist Party and the government of China are essentially one and the same, the internal machinations and appointments here represent as much power transfers/consolidations as national general elections do in other countries. --LukeSurlt c 09:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If five of the seven current PSC members indeed retire, that would definitely be worth posting. Maybe we should wait for more information on that. Xi Jinping's second term as the General Secretary is probably worth posting because wouldn't that be considered the "head of state" per ITN/R? There definitely seems to be something worth posting here. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The General Secretary is not the head of state per se; but Xi is also the president of China, and therefore the head of state wearing that hat. He is the most powerful man in the world.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Posting from Beijing, China
 * Is that a fact? Sca (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Forbes he was #4 in 2016, but maybe he might be rising a few spots after this. --LukeSurlt c 13:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economist has him at no.1.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support last time we posted both his appointment as general secretary of the CPC and the laughable sham election in their congress where he was made president. Given that the PRC is a fascist totalitarian dictatorship where Xi's authoritarian rule will not be challenged democratically, and that the story is presently in the news and that the article is decent, this would be a good time to post it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is ITN really the place for using Fascist as an insult? AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability-wise, it is a no-brainer. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Some additional referencing is needed. I have so tagged it.  When it is up to snuff, I would support Alt1: Most news outlets are seem to be treating the re-election of Xi as the main story here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Once bolded article quality is sufficient (at least no orange tags), I would support alt-blurb 1. This event is not held often, and his position is as important as other countrys' heads of state. Mamyles (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I would support posting the selection of the new Politburo Standing Committee, perhaps the enshrining of Xi Jinping Thought into the party constitution, which is a first since Mao. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support An important event in the most populous country on earth. AusLondonder (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I came by hoping to post this, but i find there are still significant referencing issues, including almost an entire section lacking refs. We cannot post an article in such a state, so this is an oppose from me at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Seems like everyone is in support if the refs are improved - I have added refs to some sections, updated others, and wholesale deleted others. In my view, the major story here is the re-shuffle of the top leadership - i.e. the Politburo Standing Committee, and the entry of "Xi Jinping Thought" into the party constitution. None of this is quite analogous to anything that happens in a parliamentary democracy so I don't want to make a comparison - the story is important in its own right and in and of itself. I would like to suggest an alternate blurb: "a new Politburo Standing Committee is formed at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China." Colipon+ (Talk) 13:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Colipon I believe this is now ready to post. Good work. --LukeSurlt c 14:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1 pending the removal of a red-tag in lead-in. (I would fix, but I don't know the intended article) Otherwise article is fine.
 * There's nothing wrong with red links. --LukeSurlt c 18:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially in an article about the Chinese Communist Party.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Xi's "re-election" is not news; it is the Xi Thought and the new Standing Committee. Colipon+ (Talk)
 * I believe that the Xi Thought in the constitution is the key thing. It elevates him to the level that only two have reached: Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. added and naturally support ALT3. From what I read, the significance of the new committee is that they are old guys who will not succeed Xi, so it's all about Xi, at least to me. starship.paint ~  KO   01:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is ready. Posting admin is going to need to bite the bullet and choose a blurb. --LukeSurlt c 11:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted I went with Alt3; it's almost too unweildy and long, but this was a complex thing and it properly explains the significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: George Young (rock musician)

 * Support Article looks good. Mamyles (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Japanese general election, 2017

 * As I'm reading the table for both this election and the last one shouldn't it be that the coalition retained their supermajority? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that. I fixed it now. Davey2116 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I will support once article is improved. There is a lot of headings for opinion polling with nothing in them. If necessary, they can be removed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They're collapsable tables; you need to click on "show" to see them.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. Change that to an unconditional support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the article is ok and it is an important current event. Actually I don't know why this has not been approved yet. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am missing section about reactions, implications, etc. Currently, there's only the result table. --Tone 11:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a "Reactions and analysis" section just now, consistent with the previous general election. Alex Shih (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Enough there to post in my opinion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, I too, am surprised this isn't on the main page yet. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this looks ready now, I will mark this as ready if no one else objects/posts it in the next few hours. Alex Shih (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's what I wanted to see, good to go. Posting. --Tone 06:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reason not to use the photo of Abe? &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and change it ;) The picture change protocol is somewhat tricky (protection etc.) so I tend to leave it to people that do it often. --Tone 12:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late on this one, but may I ask why supermajority is allowed but plurality isn't? ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Czech legislative election, 2017

 * Support - article seems comprehensive and well referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC) At least he's called Andrej and not Donald, or Olaf.
 * Support but it should either read "The ANO party" or "ANO 2011" (with no article) – I prefer the latter since that's what we generally seem to refer to them as in article space. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  &#xF0F6;  05:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, and Support when the article is improved to acceptable standard. "Date of the election" has no reference, empty section/inadequate sections under "Campaign", several claims (3 right now) without citation throughout the article. Too many one sentence sections overall. Alex ShihTalk 05:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll check back for any improvements? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course! Thank you (and everyone else involved) for the improvements. Other than the empty section at "Government formation" (supposedly pending outcome), three remaining minor maintenance tags, this is almost ready I think. Alex ShihTalk 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb – Per Marty. Babiš to be named prime minister. – Sca (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support assuming PM is the chief executive of Czechia, it would be against president not to post this. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stan Kowalski

 * Posted Stephen 01:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Insect population decline

 * Can you point out where the blurb/update is stated in the article? While the study did occur, "causes alarm" is POV and needs attribution. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately this kind of concern was reported in previous years both in Germany in worldwide:, and the recent news just show the trend is growing. Brandmeistertalk   15:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Close as stale per Brandmeister.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is in the news at the moment, as the result of a study published four days ago. You may argue that it is not significant because the decline has been occurring for a while, but saying that it is stale is off the mark. Even if this phenomenon has been reported before, may I ask why that makes it not newsworthy? Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's newsworthy per se, but in ITN terms it's an incremental arbitrary update. Next year they may report 79%, then 85%, etc, unless it stops. Brandmeistertalk   17:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should wait for the 100% drop? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I recall a suggestion in some nomination to wait for a complete extinction of some species (similar to John McCain's diagnosis nomination). Wicked, but nearly always postable. Brandmeistertalk  17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My favorite one is when it's argued North Korea's nuclear program should only be posted on ITN if it actually nukes a country. Well, of course a nuclear strike is going to be notable! There hasn't been one since the end of World War 2! --WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but at least it might get rid of those pesky gnats Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose; things cause alarm to various groups or people in general every day. There's no tangible action here to hang our hat on. As noted above, this is nothing new. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose See maximum sustainable yield. If insect populations in a certain area are in decline it may be due to habitat loss (you don't find cicadas where there are no trees) but overall population numbers bounce back extremely rapidly in r-selection species, since they have extremely high replacement rates.  That is, consider a species which lays thousands of eggs.  If its population is stable, that means 999 out of 1000 offspring is dying before replacing a parent.  If there is a harsh winter, numbers may drop dramatically, but the next year the infraspecies competition over resources will be less and the population will rebound immediately to the carrying capacity of its resources.  If anything this is a story about habitat or competition, not simple population loss. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Medeis, I strongly urge you to stop engaging in WP:OR to advance your opinions here. It is disruptive. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was also about to point this out. I can accept that folks here in general do not see this being important enough to post, but basing an opinion on this matter on guesses about species ecology is quite strange. Not to mention that the reasoning is quite inaccurate: past research strongly relates this to the use of chemical pesticides decreasing available habitat space, ie these are undergoing k-selection, not R-selection. Vanamonde (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, you've just agreed with me, it's likely habitat space. Let's move the Germans to Saskatchewan. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you are a psychic, or a psychiatrist, Abductive? Or are you just projecting when you speak of "opinion"?  We are supposed to give the reasoning for our oppose, which I did, based on my undergraduate study of population ecology and the relevant concepts, linked to articles.  That's not OR.  Neither have I expressed any "opinion", pro-or contra Germany or flying insects.  Complain to the opposes above saying there's always something to panic about.  I agree with them, but I don't see any links provided by them. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this can be OR either, although it does seem wrong to me (or at least off the mark; see below). Banedon (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as nominated - I think Medeis is missing the mark. The argument here is about biodiversity loss, not about total population sizes. Analogy: say there were 10 billion insects, coming from 10 million species, 30 years ago (these numbers are not to be taken seriously). If there are 11 billion insects today and only 1 million species, there's no population decline, but there is biodiversity loss. The paper doesn't actually claim biodiversity loss, only population decline; however given the magnitude of the decline sustained over 30 years it seems unlikely that there wasn't also biodiversity loss (it also seems unlikely that this is a short-term effect like that due to winter). I weakly oppose anyway because 1) biodiversity loss isn't explicitly claimed and 2) given #1, it's not fair to link biodiversity loss. Looking at the article, there's pollinator decline. Why not link that? Banedon (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. And a good alternative idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, if 9 million species went extinct, we'd have a story. But that's not what the source says, not what the blurb indicates, and not what I have addressed.  I notice that my oppose is the only one being taken seriously, while the snarky ones are being ignored.  Why are they immune from criticism?  I take that as an indication that my critics at least implicitly realize I have posted the only real argument for an oppose worth attempting to counter.  If we had a nomination that said just one single insect species had gone extinct, I'd support it vigorously.  But that's not what we have here, is it?  My oppose stands. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheer up, as you said your oppose is the only one being taken seriously and the only one worth responding to. That's something to be proud of! I've also opposed for the same reason, because the paper doesn't actually claim biodiversity loss (although it's implied). PS, there are a bajillion insect species many of which have never been documented, so it's probable that they go extinct all the time. We have an article with a comprehensive list of endangered insects: there are several hundred. I probably would not support a nomination based on a single insect species going extinct. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, primary source made a splash in the lay media. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Plague Outbreak in Madagascar

 * Oppose - largely because of the poor article quality. The article looks quite random, important information is missing (when was it first described etc.). The section epidemiology is the worst, making it look as the pneumonic plague is a recent phenonema, not even mentioning the outbreak in Manchuria around 1900.  81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds exactly like something I would see in Plague Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.144.23 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this nominated before? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, many of the comments at In the news/Candidates/November 2014 are still relevant I think. There should be at least an dedicated article to the outbreak itself first prior to posting. Alex ShihTalk 04:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd want there to be a dedicated article for the outbreak rather than linking to a section of Pneumonic plague. --LukeSurlt c 10:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Fuebaey (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning support, but I would like the article to be expanded a bit first. I wouldn't mind if it were posted as-is, I suppose. ~ Mable ( chat ) 15:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support don't see a reason not to. Banedon (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a pandemic like 2013–14 chikungunya outbreak or 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] New Zealand coalition government

 * support pretty sure Jacinda Ardern is the NEW PM as well..-- Stemoc 06:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Blurb should mention Ardern becoming Prime Minister along with a picture. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the article is properly updated. Ardern is set to become PM but this fact is not mentioned in the lead nor in the body of the article. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we posted the election results, we should not also be posting the government forming (even if it's after weeks of negotiations). One or the other, but not both. Banedon (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bold article should be Jacinda Ardern and posted when she officially becomes PM. Altblurb suggested. Support notability, as PM changes are generally notable in medium-to-large countries even when dissociated from election results. --LukeSurlt c 09:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully state that I would not describe NZ as a medium country, with a population of a little less than 5 million. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Bandeon. We posted the results of the election, where it was already known there would be a coalition(as no one got a majority of seats). Unless this is a big news story worldwide, or this result is some sort of surprise(not knowledgeable in NZ politics) we don't typically post both the election and the government forming. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a surprise. The National Party won a plurality of seats in the election and would have been expected to continue in government. As the cited source says "The decision will come as a shock to National, which holds two more seats than the Labour-Green bloc and ends its hope of leading New Zealand for a fourth term." --LukeSurlt c 10:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. OK I understand this now. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose at the moment. Bit torn here; this is surprising news, but we did post the election, and the mayors of most large urban centers in Asia, Europe, or the US serve larger populations than the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb. The bolded article is quite good, and the story here is the new Prime Minister (head of government) and new government.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. This is a surprise, and has made headlines around the world. It's fresh news even if we did post the election results previously. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Ardern hasn't become Prime Minister yet, I'm guessing the formal appointment will happen tomorrow? --LukeSurlt c 13:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, we can always tweak the wording for "Will become" or is "expected to become". That's a small matter, regardless.  Her article is quite good otherwise.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the alternate blurb; the change in prime minister is worth mentioning. I disagree with the claims that the "result" of the election was posted last month, given that the result wasn't known until several hours ago. The blurb that was posted talked about Bill English and the National Party winning the most seats, but Bill English isn't the prime minister and the National Party aren't forming the government. &clubs;   Ameliorate!  14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the alternate blurb. In the words of the outgoing Prime Minister, he "questioned whether there was a result anywhere in the world where a party took 44 per cent of the vote and did not win". Nobody knew what the outcome of this was going to be. It didn't go the way that most people expected. It was won by somebody who took over the opposition 10 weeks out from the election when the opinion polls had hit a new historic low. Her meteoric rise has made world news, and winning this election will continue to make world news.  Schwede 66  18:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest the outgoing Prime Minister might want to pay a little more attention in that case, given that there are numerous examples of elections in which a party got higher votes than that and still lost. Now he has more time on his hands, perhaps Hillary Clinton can explain this to him. &#8209; Iridescent 19:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the alternative blurb, along with a picture, per User:Schwede66's comments above.— Hugh (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I appreciate that NZ is underrepresented at ITN. However, we posted the election result already, and ultimately New Zealand is a tiny country with a population roughly that of Miami. The "her rise has made world news" comments above are ridiculous hyperbole; with the (possible) exception of Australia I doubt one person in 1000 in any other country in the world - including places like the US and UK with traditionally close ties to NZ - has the slightest idea who she is or has ever even heard the name. &#8209; Iridescent 19:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I must have missed the headlines. Maybe big news in New Zealand. But hardly of the importance or uniqueness that would justify posting this election twice. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Frankly changes of government in countries should be ITN/R no matter what the size. This is important news and we should cover it providing the article is up to scratch. Frankly, I see no reason why we shouldn't post this. If we adopt a rule about not posting a change of government after an election if we have already posted an election, then the rule should be that we don't post a blurb about an election until the outcome is clear. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, and will start a discussion on WT:ITNR once this nomination is closed / stale. Banedon (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * support I did suggust we wait when the election was posted. We posted when english was made pm after key resigned and this is a much bigger story. Also it is not just a case of the party with the most votes not becoming the government, it is the party with the most seats not becoming the government. AIR corn (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alternate blurb More significant than the earlier entry on the results of the election (which are never the main story in countries with this kind of electoral system). I can't support the proposed primary blurb though, as it implies that Winston Peters is the PM/head of the coalition. The alternate blurb is fine. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb with a slight tweak of tense. There is a pretty good consensus for posting this now. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, all. This came as a surprise to me, both the news and the matter of seeing it first on WP. Thincat (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gord Downie

 * Even though his death was expected, I'd honestly argue Gord deserves a full blurb. He was one of the most significant musicians and entertainers in Canadian history. Thst said, obvious support for RD. Resolute 13:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - something to be said about their final concert being watched by almost 1/3 of the country... second only to the 2010 Olympic gold medal hockey match I believe. RD is obvious. Leonard Cohen had a blurb and I'd argue that they are both on equal footing -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Nowhere near the level of coverage necessary for a blurb, which is lead item on TV news bulletins, front pages of newspapers worldwide etc. To suggest his international name recognition is equal to Cohen's is way, way off. Article quality seems OK for RD though.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb outright and oppose RD at the moment due to referencing issues. I'm going to shoot myself for this, but given this individual is supposedly so prominent, how come he has articles in only two other languages? Popular in Canada, sure, as evidenced by the unreferenced album charts, but anywhere else?  I wouldn't imagine Gary Barlow would get a blurb in a million years, so I can't see any reason why Downie should either. Not really up there with Prince or David Bowie.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chart positions are referenced in the album articles. I oppose nearly all death blurbs, including this one. It's hard to over-state The Hip's influence in Canada where their music is omnipresent. The fact that the CBC aired their final show under the billing The Tragically Hip: A National Celebration should give you some indication. Your concerns about article quality are always welcome. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By all means copy those references across, we should never rely on other articles for references if it only takes a moment to fix it. I have no doubt he was influential in Canada, just as Gary Barlow is influential in the UK, but if Barlow died tomorrow, we wouldn't blurb him.  So we don't blurb Downie.  Certainly RD once the quality is sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Are people really trying to compare the singer for "Tragically Hip" to the Bowie standard? Hell no. RD was made for cases like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Naturally not. Downie had the misfortune of being Canadian instead of British or American, thus he could not meet an impossible standard.  Resolute 23:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be the standard that Leonard Cohen, a Canadian, passed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As well as Geddy Lee, Neil Peart, and Alex Lifeson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.104.164 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Pawnkingthree. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per Pawnkingthree. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD - Contingent upon improved referencing. I'm Canadian, so I don't know if I'm in a good position to say one way or the other, but I'm pretty sure the Tragically Hip are virtually unknown outside my country. I don't think a blurb is warranted here. Kurtis (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, never heard of them before today.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've heard of them before, but I didn't know they were Canadian, or such a big thing up there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD, article looks fine. Oppose blurb like I do for nearly all deaths. He's gone to Fiddlers Green. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment his death isn't really covered in any detail at all, could we get some more information, it just says his family were by his side, I guess that doesn't mean following a car crash or anything, but it's not clear. Some people have said this was expected, even at an early age, so there appears to be a gap in the information here.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Diagnosed with terminal brain cancer (glioblastoma) just over a year ago. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, Yes, I know who he was, thanks to having listened to CFNY-FM when I lived in the Buffalo area, but most other non-Canadians won't (It should definitely be blurbed on the Canadian portal, though). Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the amount of data they have, the billboard website is EXCEPTIONALLY useless. WOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we just drop the chart positions from downies article and move on if the refs are that important? It's stunning how useless billboard.com is. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The historic chart positions only show the first 10. Useless, terrible site. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD A Canadian icon, final concert viewed by 11.7 million people, statement by Canada's Prime Minister on his death, I could go on. AdA&D  19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to give us your assessment of the article's quality as that is the only criteria for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's well sourced and fairly comprehensive, it's neutral in its coverage, there's no original research that I can see, It's got quality creative-commons images of Gord, and it's not being edit warred over. No issues here imo. AdA&D  21:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the RD while I'm on the fence about the blurb. I just fixed one problem with the article and it looked like there were not many overall. This death was quite interesting given how long people had to say goodbye. Connor Behan (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD: I requested two more citations, once these are filled I think this can be marked as ready. Alex ShihTalk 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: After copyedit by several editors in the past two hours (thank you all), I think this is ready now. Marking as so. Alex ShihTalk 06:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Notable Canadian musician but not well known outside Canada. There are several Canadian acts who are better known outside Canada than the Tragically Hip. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Man Booker Prize

 * Support Target article is of sufficient quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I guess we don't need an article on this year's prize if we can have the book as the bolded article, which I agree looks fine. Incidentally I think "2017" is unnecessary for the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Book article is fine. Saunders' article, while not noted as a target, could be there if the awards section was sourced (which some sourcing for appears to exist in the body of the article) and books expanded to include ISBN and other bibliographical data, but this is not essential for posting the book-based blurb. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article is fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support looks like its ready. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of Raqqa

 * Support in princple Obviously lets wait for the official declaration, but assuming nothing else changes at this point, this is a major milestone, and the article is presently in good shape. --M ASEM (t) 13:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for an "official" declaration from a non-state entity? Abductive  (reasoning) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If RSes consider the SDF the "authority" on if the battle is over or not (and other events of the past), even if they are not the government itselef, there's not much else we can do, but accept that. (If we knew the SDF was frequently wrong or exaggerated, much like North Korea's statments, that would be a reason to doubt, but I don't think we have that here for the SDF). --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a major event in the Syrian Civil War and although the article could use some work, it's quite informative.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 15:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – would be full support if article was in better quality, nevertheless this is a major step to ending the War on Terror. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ISIS didn't exist when the asinine "War on Terror" was started by Bush, so at best we are back to where we were then; except now we are allied with elements of Al-Qaeda. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ISIS is basically a successor to Al-Qaeda at this point, most (but not all) of the extremist group disappeared after the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, though remnants still exist elsewhere. Kirliator (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are sadly mistaken. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright enough fighting, what this argument is about is off topic from what exactly the nomination is about. You two should find common ground and put your differences aside. SamaranEmerald (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per same reasons as Masem and Hornetzilla78, article still needs some work, but ultimately I support the decision. Kirliator (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It is an important event.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now based on update not really being there. There's a sentence towards the end of the article which indicates that maybe, possibly, it could be over.  If the blurb is going to make a definitive statement of the battle being over, the article should make much more a point of it.  It isn't even in the lead, and the text of the body barely makes note of it.  It would be much better if the article update and its prominence were commensurate with the significance of the event.  If that were fixed, this would be main page ready; the article otherwise is very good.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this will have major impact in the upcoming months. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Quality is fine and definitely "in the news" – front page of the New York Times this morning.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 13:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Dunsworth

 * Support. Article looks well-updated. 2607:FEA8:1CE0:3D4:945A:9473:FF21:E140 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Prominent actor. Good to go. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 05:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose unreferenced list of films (most of them red- or un-linked). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of refs and removed some unreferenced bits that were trivial. There are two unreferenced sentences remaining that I don't have time to address right now. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some info and referenced the last two items. I'd mark this as ready, but I'm the nominator. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to list all 70 credits of his filmography as indicated by IMDB? I'd mark this as ready too if the list was slightly condensed with one additional secondary source. Alex ShihTalk 01:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing I did to the filmography was add the lede sentence and ref. I've now condensed the list to linked articles and a couple notable unlinked roles mentioned in the numerous obituaries. I'm not sure where I'd find a reliable source with a filmography... what's wrong with IMDb for filmographies? -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing, I just thought it would have been ideal to have something else to verify the notability on some of these titles. The condensed list looks fine to me, I'll mark this as ready for another reviewer. Thanks! Alex ShihTalk 03:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Liberation of Marawi

 * "However, Brigadier-General Restituto Padilla, an army spokesman, stated that some fighters remained and operations will continue till their elimination" as stated in the article. If the battle is not over, then the blurb is misleading.  The article itself is not in a terrible state, but I can't tell from the text if the notion that the battle is completed is factual.  I am not opposed to posting this article, but perhaps an altblurb where we highlight the key event we're reporting, which seems to be the deaths of the leaders rather than the end of the battle.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The president of the country has already declared the liberation of the city from pro-ISIS groups. Any military operation now is purely a normal mopping-up operation after regaining control of the whole city. STSC (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now added an alt blurb. STSC (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have requested two citations from July section, but other than that I didn't find any major concerns. I would support once the fighting ends completely, which should be imminent. Alex ShihTalk 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have inserted the citations as requested. STSC (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, but I don't think we should say "liberated" per WP:LABEL. Altblurb2 added. GCG (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: The mopping-up operations are still ongoing apparently. I will post this once the situation becomes more clear. Alex ShihTalk 16:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mopping-up operations come to end. (Reuters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenda H. (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as military operation really ended. Article is in good shape. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex ShihTalk 10:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ex-hurricane Ophelia / Iberian Wildfires

 * Weak oppose— "oppose" because compared to other hurricanes we wouldn't dream of posting, this is relatively minor, "weak" because this is the lead story in Ireland and a prominent story in the UK (although on the British mainland its prominence is largely down to the weird atmospheric effects that turned the skies orange yesterday). The "strongest storm ever recorded" needs a source if you're planning to say it in Wikipedia's voice, since Hurricane Debbie was stronger and caused more fatalities/injuries in Ireland. &#8209; Iridescent 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks quite good. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Hurricane strikes on Europe's soil are rare, and with the added deaths from the fires, makes the count notable, even if it was a indirect aftereffect. (The last hurricane when it hit the US had press counting two traffic deaths due to wet roads from the rain it dumped, so this is the same principle here). --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Per the consensus at In the news/Candidates/July 2017 and the oppose arguments at In the news/Candidates/August 2017 where argued a natural disaster killing hundreds (in fact it was thousands) was not worthy of inclusion. We should maintain consistency with all natural disasters. AusLondonder (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I pointed out on the Floods nom that hundreds die each year in flooding in that specific area of the world, that's unfortunately a routine event. On the other hand hurricanes hitting Europe with enough strength to cause problems is a rarity. --M ASEM (t) 13:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But does that make the floods less newsworthy and this more newsworthy? The floods were extensively covered in reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Routine, but tragic events, are things ITN does not cover. We don't cover deaths from the annual flood season, we don't cover deaths in war-torn areas, we don't cover most gun attacks in the US, etc. If the numbers exceed any past events, then we may include those events for the notably larger death toll. But we shouldn't be trying to compare different types of events in different parts of the world by death toll; we should be looking at the non-routineness of the event. --M ASEM (t) 14:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Arguably a storm event in Britain and Ireland is routine, though. The only non-routine part was the way the system originated. AusLondonder (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support (primarily for the wildfires) — Ophelia itself is not particularly out of the ordinary for the British Isles as an extratropical cyclone, but its origins as a hurricane give it some extra notability. The bigger story should be the October 2017 Iberian wildfires in my opinion given the substantially larger loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good point and I would support a nomination for the October 2017 Iberian wildfires. AusLondonder (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added the wildfires to the nomination and suggested an altblurb. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this approach as well, but the wildfire article needs more expansion to be a target. --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fortunately this did not do enough damage to merit a posting on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose – surprising how a water-based storm caused fires to break out, which is unusual. Nevertheless my opposition is weak because the total destruction costs are significantly lower compared to hurricanes earlier this season. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 we posted the Californian wildfires, we should post this also. They are not that different (e.g. in death toll). Banedon (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They're quite different in article quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose wildfire article It's a stub. No opinion on Ophelia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ophelia article: "Storm in Ireland kills 3" is a minor tragedy that hardly seems ITN-worthy, even if it also kept me indoors for a few hours and broke a flower-pot in my sister's garden - or maybe ITN should lead with "Storm destroys Wikipedian's sister's flower-pot" :) The only problem is that it'd be OR, as I don't count as a Reliable Source (as it was probably my sister's patio, not her garden), but we can't use trivial objections like OR as an excuse for censoring ITN :) No real views on the wildfires, but, even if it eventually achieves the required article quality, we probably should be cautious about the Ophelia link, when the Spanish PM blames much of it on arson, and there's no clear indication of how much of the death toll is due to Ophelia. So arguably somebody should really close this Ophelia nom and open a new Iberian Wildfires nom so the widfires can be properly discussed on their own merits. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ophelia article on significance (biggest storm to hit the UK in 30 years) and article quality. Oppose wildfires article as it's a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the death toll in the UK is precisely zero (the Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK). As for quality, the article claims 48 deaths for the storm, but 45 of these are in Iberia which gets barely a couple of sentences in the article. plus a link to a stub (and it's also unclear how many are due to the storm, and how many would have happened anyway) - if 95% of an article about a tragedy is about 5% of the tragedy, that's a serious quality issue (basically WP:UNDUE + WP:BIAS), at least in my opinion. Such distortions are commonplace in Wikipedia articles, but ITN is supposed to be about showing us at our best, not at our worst. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support for the "strongest storm" blurb. The strongest storm in a country's history, especially a country like Ireland that take whatever the Atlantic throws at it, is newsworthy and in a slower week might easily make it onto ITN. Unfortunately, it pales in comparison to some of the other natural disasters occurring at the moment. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  10:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What 'strongest storm in the country's history'? - our proposed blurb seems just plain wrong - the article doesn't seem to say that, and The Irish Times seems to deny it, saying:
 * Storm Ophelia evolved from the strongest eastern Atlantic hurricane in 150 years of records, University College Cork climatologist Dr Kieran Hickey has said.
 * The tropical revolving storm may not have broken wave or land wind speed records, due to its brevity and intensity, but it may break a record for insurance costs, Dr Hickey has said.
 * I might add that it's not the deadliest either (11 died in 1961, and out of a much smaller population, compared to just 3 this time, presumably thanks partly to being fore-warned and thus taking sensible precautions), and if it turns out to be the costliest (which is by no means certain yet (as in Dr Hickey's qualifier "may" in the above quote), so using that would violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL), that's probably just because of inflation and the country being much wealthier than it used to be (we are now one of the wealthiest countries in the world, according to these IMF tables, though you'll have to click on the sort arrows for each year to see where we stand). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose We're doing far too much contorting to squeeze an ITN out of this story. The wildfires pass on notability but not quality. The hurricane passes on quality but not notability. If we are going to suggest that they are the same thing, the wildfires need more prominence in the hurricane article. GCG (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Roy Dotrice

 * Support Looks good to me. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited, important actor, looks good to me. Alex ShihTalk 03:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support yes, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted per WP:IAR (I voted, but this should be uncontroversial). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Daphne Caruana Galizia

 * Support: This is definitely a news-worthy event. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A very murky affair. Article could do with some expansion regarding her role in the Panama Papers controversy involving senior Maltese politicians including the Prime Minister. It is rare to see journalists murdered in such a manner in Europe, making it all the more notable. She was also named by Politico as one of "28 people who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe". I have made some minor quality improvements to the article. AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose maybe if we would know more about the background about the alleged assassination. The death might or might not be related to her work as journalist. But this way the article is a bit too suggestive. Not fit for the main page. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now on article quality. Her notability is primarily due to her involvement in the Panama Papers, and currently the article reduces her central role in the event to a single sentence.  If that were expanded so her notability was clearer, that would go a long way towards making this main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per recent updates. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weal oppose per Jayron32.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I expanded a bit about the Panama Papers. The article needs more work, but as it is I think that it gives a good amount of information. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well sourced and no glaring issues.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Article is well written and referenced, extremely rare occurrence in Malta (and Europe as a whole I would say). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex ShihTalk 11:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Detection of neutron star merger

 * Support in Principle, but needs expansion – okay, THIS is a major astronomical milestone, unlike that previous two posted within the last week about the ring around Haumea and the asteroid making a close approach to Earth. However, the article is only start-class at the moment, and needs some expansion before we post this. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * *Shurgs* Fair enough. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one of the biggest physics / astronomy stories of the year.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The main event here isnt just detection of neutron star merger but a subsequent GRB and Visual detection of event, probably should be reflected in blurb. 216.16.227.17 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I've expanded the article with the most important elements of the discovery. The kilonova article isn't developed well though, maybe we should not include a link to it. Gap9551 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I added an alternative blurb with a more balanced inclusion of GW and EM observations. The announcement was made by more collaborations than just LIGO/Virgo. Gap9551 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Posting alt2, which includes all. --Tone 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How does that include all? It was observed and described in gravitational waves, gamma rays, x-rays, visible light, infrared, and radio.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All but the gravity waves are light. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per light, "light" usually means "visible light" rather than all electromagnetic radiation. That's beside the point though, since the blurb currently says "gravitational waves", "visible light", and "gamma rays", which is definitely only three of the six channels of observation.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a compromise, certainly not complete. Listing all bands may make the blurb too long, and most attention in the article (and most sources I think) is currently on gamma-rays and optical. Gamma-rays was the first band in which the event was detected, optical provided an accurate location. Gap9551 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The location was found initially with an optical telescope operating in the i-band, which is actually near infrared rather than visible. Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The i-band, like all bands, has a finite width. It is centered in the near infrared, but can extend to e.g. 700 nm, which is visible. Gap9551 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I also posted at WP:ERRORS. That is probably the more appropriate forum for this discussion.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I replied to the discussion there, but I haven't seen an error in the blurb being pointed out yet, here or there. Gap9551 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Isnilon Hapilon

 * Support. Well-sourced article. Although I can't seem to condone OP's political (?) comments. 162.221.124.246 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two CN tags, and there is no official confirmation of his death yet. Sources such as the BBC are reporting only "troops in the southern Philippines say..." which I don't think is good enough for a BLP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just found a report that the death has been confirmed by the Phillipines Defense Secretary, which seems official enough. I will add it to the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would be strange to list this death without also including Omar Maute, another ISIS commander that was killed on the same day. I would support posting the Battle of Marawi blurb instead. Alex ShihTalk 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree I am suggesting to withdraw this nomination. It is alredy to late to post this. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sean Hughes

 * Now fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Some great work on sourcing going on and now looks good to post.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Amazing amount of work has gone in to the article in the last 4hours Graemec2 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Kirkuk (2017)

 * Support when expanded - In the news. There will be far reaching consequences - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait – situation is really unclear. Did any battle actually occurred? --Jenda H. (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "clashes", conveys driving around the desert, no deaths reported. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article could use some expanding, but meets minimum standards. Would be a full support if sufficiently expanded to match coverage.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Described by the Coalition as "coordinated movements", not much action has happened. Alex ShihTalk 06:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

[posted] Austrian legislative election, 2017

 * Support? Are the results still pending? Is there some ceremony before the guy is officially named Chancellor? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not pending, the postal votes have been counted and updated to the article too. He will become the Chancellor only after he forms the government coalition (which may take a long time). --Pudeo (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this not a general election and therefore ITN/R? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I'd drop the sparse and uncited "Campaign" section, but otherwise fine. GCG (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Wonder why this isn't posted yet. It's very notable news in European politics, especially with the rise of the FPÖ and all that. MikeLynch (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Kyrgyz presidential election, 2017

 * Support I'm pleasantly surprised by the fact I found a decent article, updated, referenced (albeit in non-English source but hey...). So yes, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks great. GCG (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good to see a very reasonable article. Definitely worthy for inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Venezuelan regional elections, 2017

 * Oppose. Regional elections are most certainly not ITN/R. Also they are not interesting.  Abductive  (reasoning) 07:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regional-level elections are not ITNR. "General elections" refers to elections for national legislatures. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[closed] RD: Richard Wilbur

 * Support. Article would appear to meet any reasonable referencing standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Not sure about the importance of the subject. There are some information from the infobox, career and poetry collection that could use some additional references, but no major concerns overall. Alex ShihTalk 05:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bibliography poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as the referencing seems to have been addressed now. Connormah (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, attention needed. Yesterday, I added some more citations to address the concerns TMR mentioned. But I didn't have the time to post a status update until just now. Also, (re: Alex Shih's comment about the info box), I didn't immediately spot any problems there. Meanwhile, I'll continue to update the article with additional citations. As time allows. And I hope we can get additional input from other editors. I believe we're getting close to our quality standard here, Christian Roess (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it will never make the main page, because it is stale. It is already older (Oct 14) than the oldest currently posted death (Oct 16).  Eh.  It happens.  What are you going to do.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Mogadishu bombings

 * Support, if expanded. It is a violence prone region, but BBC and others are reporting this as the deadliest attack in Somalia's entire history.  However, the current article barely even gives any context and will need to be suitably expanded before posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: The Mogadishu bombings are a critical event. So far at least 237 were dead and the body count is ongoing. However, the article needs expansion plus reactions from world leaders. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b><b style="color:#010"></b> ( talk ) 16:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on principle Obviously we need more of an article, but there's enough confirmation of how deadly this attack was, even considering that the area is subject to frequent such attacks. --M ASEM (t) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I have done just a few tweaks in structure to provide an "Attack" section to describe the event, but otherwise this is sufficient for main page. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support violence porn, 200+ deaths, that's the kind of stuff we love to post. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got the idea <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 18:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. This is a pretty extreme level of violence even for that part of the world. Unfortunately the article is little more than a stub. Will reconsider on expansion with adequate referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on expansion I'd love to do this now, but I'm a bit busy unfortunately. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle – when article is presentable – due to fearsomely high death toll, now reported at 276. – Sca (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in Principle, Oppose in Quality – fatality count is high and ITN worthy, but article itself is not in great shape at the moment, it needs some work before it can be posted. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – looks like it's ready now. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - The first section is reactions. That says a lot on quality. - Sherenk1 (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article currently consists of a short lead section and a dreadful "reactions" section. If and when someone both deletes the "reactions" section and expands the rest of the article beyond a stub state, I'd support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article is borderline for length but very uninformative in content. Plenty of sources to write a more useful article here. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, now that it has been expanded somewhat. This is definitely worthy of ITN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fleshed out enough and the subject of the topic merits posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Huge attack, big news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Support This news is featuring recurrently in all major news agency headlines.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex ShihTalk 04:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Harvey Weinstein

 * Weak oppose With all due respect to Weinstein's career and his achievements, this is an event that revokes his membership from a honorary organisation and mostly impacts his personal dignity. I know that much was going on regarding the allegations in the last couple of days and we have a very good article about it, but it's still not something that should go on the main page in my opinion. Perhaps a mild opposition explains my stance the best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I've never heard of this guy, and though his work is impressive, I don't believe his expulsion from an honorary organization is ITN-worthy. If it was a scandal featuring a handful of Hollywood legends, then I might have !voted differently, but right now it's more like "this successful guy may have done a bad thing and now this respected organization doesn't want to deal with him anymore." No real impact. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Aside from the reasons given, I'm not sure it's a good idea to post something based on unproven allegations. Possibly if he is arrested, but more likely if he is convicted of anything, would be better reason to post. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the highest-grossing Hollywood producers. This is unprecedented, and a watershed in the industry (the Academy did this to send a signal that they will no longer turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SupportOnly one other person has been kicked out and it was for actions directly related to the Academy. Weinstein is the first to be kicked out over allegations that are unrelated to his Academy status. The allegations have elicited many responses from others in the film industry as well as politicians, especially those that received donations. It triggered a slew of fresh allegations against others, all of which have been covered in the news. --DHeyward (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose it's dominated the news for days and should go up. Filmography unreferenced. Early career poorly referenced. "Activism" section reads like a list of bullet points from Breitbart.com. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bold article should be Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations not Harvey Weinstein. --LukeSurlt c 11:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Key word is allegations. This is a knee-jerk political reaction against something yet proven, and the type of stuff that if we are covering this heavily outside of his article fails NOT#NEWS. --M ASEM  (t) 12:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As well as a major failure of WP:BLP to cover it in this depth while they remain allegations. --M ASEM (t) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How can it be a failure of BLP? All referenced to solid, reliable sources. BLP doesn't say we can't report negative stuff about someone. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The amount of coverage we're giving this at this time is far too gossipy. They are allegations, no court case, no arrest, no conviction. It's a bunch of celebrity gossip mixed with the political ties that are involved. Obviously some of these effects are needed to be spelled out on his page, but as we are NOT#NEWS, we should be waiting for a lot more details before trying to get into the substance of the allegations, otherwise we are presuming guilty before proven otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 22:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think the voices of those women who have been raped, some of them multiple times, count for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's something to be determined by investigation and a court of law. Just because someone claims they may be a victim doesn't mean they necessary are a victim, particularly in the pile-on that happened here. Until a court rules that rape was involved, we as editors cannot presume that. --M ASEM (t) 22:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Several courts of law, by the look of it. The queue of potential litigants seems to be growing daily. Perhaps we can just take it easy for a few months. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I never heard of this guy until a few days ago. Not important enough for ITN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, your ignorance of the film industry now sets the standard for what is important enough for the main page and what is not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have undoubtedly seen his name at the beginning and end of countless movies.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2012, Time magazine called him the most powerful producer in Hollywood. Of all time, he is the second-most thanked person in Oscar award winner's speeches (after Steven Spielberg).  I would suggest that never having heard of him says more about you than him.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm actually very sympathetic to posting about the Harvey Weinstein story, but the Academy expulsion strikes me as the wrong time / wrong hook.  His being fired from the Weinstein Company was already more consequential.  The announcement of formal charges would be even more serious, potentially followed by trial, conviction, etc.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the [insert gasp] Academy! Not inconsequential.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Academy can expel someone for any reason they see fit. We have things like BLP to regulate such things. 331dot (talk)○


 * Oppose – Per 331, Masem. Still based on hearsay. A scandal no doubt, but the topic of sexual behavior of celebrities remains of questionable significance. Sca (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as firstly we generally don't post allegations and secondly I don't think the activities of a celebrity is appropriate for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Innocent until proven guilty. This isn't a tabloid.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not a gossip column or as Lugnuts aptly put it... a supermarket tabloid. As far as I am aware not a single thing has been proven in court. Even then I'd probably oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why the focus of the blurb is on the Academy membership, not the allegations.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for one reason, there's no conviction. This has been all over my news for at least a week, and as lurid and shameful as it appears to be, we simply don't post such tat - innocent until proven guilty.  If Weinsein gets convicted of multiple rapes etc, then we could consider posting, but right now this is not what an encyclopedia would focus on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, it seems like a tabloid story, but it's all over the news. Now Emmanuel Macron is revoke his Legion of Honour. Agree that convictions are probably years away, but even without these, his career is in ruins. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'm sure Sebastian Kurz will get nominated soon. Might be a worthier, but less notable, nomination.
 * Oppose and I'd probably oppose even if he's convicted. The article gives no convincing answer to the question "who is this guy and why does he matter". There are plenty of film producers in the world, so why is he notable at ITN level? Banedon (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I still oppose this but if it is posted it should just mention the expulsion and not the unproven allegations. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  Comments running 4:1 against posting. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump initiates Trumpcare by executive action

 * Oppose First, this is likely going to be challenged immediately. Second, it doesn't end Obamacare, nor start Trumpcare, it is a tactic aimed to force Congress to act to actually complete the repeal of Obamacare. --M ASEM (t) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The suspension of payments, also covered in the article, will begin immediately. It will be challenged, but so is every policy of this sort (we reported on the Muslim-focused travel bans as soon as they were issued, despite the certainty that they would be challenged). bd2412  T 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose all these Trump "exec orders" are going to be challenged, not followed, ignored, and then overturned in due course. At least that's one good thing about the US electoral system, fixed four-year terms.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Same reasons as Masem, it is not immediate and will likely have difficulty being enforced along the way. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose another Trumpism at its finest. The main purpose of the executive order is not immediate and as Hornetzilla and Masem have stated, it does not effectively remove Obamacare. Kirliator (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this domestic policy change per above. Also a systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support because it's in the news. Article is no worse than most of the other barely above stub unlikely to ever be expanded articles we post. There is a whole "Please do not" above about complaining about one country. We don't fight bias by suppressing articles. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Obesity among all US adults reaches all-time high

 * Oppose painfully obvious but this has been the case for years. It is thus, not unusual. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not unusual per the latter’s comment, this statistic occurs annually. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely because this was predictable, not sure whether WP:CRYSTALBALL is involved, but nevertheless is plainly obvious. Kirliator (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because the article is a mess of prose-line, loosely related factoids, missing references, and stub sections. Leading health story would have been good enough for me. Interesting, the redder the state, the fatter the residents. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – it’s a sad truth, but the thing is, many Americans are in fact aware of this situation. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: William Lombardy

 * Comment Referencing looks good but there are no details of his death in the body of the article yet. I think we should wait until more details emerge. Hopefully other outlets will report on this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Support Now article has been updated with his death and it has been reported by the US Chess Federation and NY Times. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose (regretfully) until there's evidence that this is actually in the news. Article is mint, so a couple more mainstream publications with his death noted would suffice a posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment NYTimes posted a long obit for him, linked above. ITN aspect is met, and that should be used to populate the article. --M ASEM (t) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming that was the only concern, are we good to go now,, ? GCG (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see that "Notable games", all external links (which should be avoided inline), does not have a ref. There should be some source that gives this as notable games. Outside of that it seems fine. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted. I've temporarily commented out the "Notable games" section as the issue has been pointed out by, and the content itself also strikes me as OR without a secondary source. But the rest of the article looks fine. Alex ShihTalk 03:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Albert Zafy

 * Support solid article, good sourcing. Was just coming to nominate this myself. EternalNomad (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The formatting of the references could be cleaner, but the article is completely sourced, and formatting isn't a blocking issue. --M ASEM (t) 16:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Never really heard of this man, but the article is well-structured and has a decent amount of sources. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose  there's a permanent dead link in there which needs to be fixed (and some bare URLs). It's okay, but those need fixing before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I filled in the bare URLs and removed the dead link. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ANYONE? This has been good to go for nearly 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2012 TC4

 * Oppose looking at the page discussing asteroid approaching Earth in 2017, this is more frequent than it looks. Kirliator (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Oppose as the user above notes, this happens all the time and generally does not get major news coverage on it. 2600:1015:B106:9387:71E5:99D9:A50A:3AC7 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kirliator, according to the List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2017, it is in fact not uncommon for asteroids to make close approaches to Earth; in fact some of the asteroids on the list have actually made closer approaches than this one. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As the primary contributor to that article (close approaches, I would like to mention that its notability is not in its close approach, but the other information stated: it is not only the first asteroid to be predicted passing so close to the Earth since 367943 Duende in 2013 (which I believe got a featured current event here) but also the first asteroid to ever pass this close to the Earth twice- providing possibly the first opportunity ever to study such a small asteroid in great detail. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose article about the asteroid is barely over a stub-class rank, and information about this passing is limited on the page as well. Events like this are not generally covered by mass media due to either occurring more often then people think or because of a lack of interest (or possibly both). Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has the making of a very good DYK, but not an ITN item because it's trivial and ultimately meaningless to us all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very cute news, and also very trivial. No real reason to post this. Glad to see an asteroid with a nicely developed article, though. Oppose ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Vietnam tropical depression

 * Support Significant impact, well-sourced article. --M ASEM (t) 17:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support significant number of fatalities, which is surprising for a tropical depression. Kirliator (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support was going to nominate this earlier but failed to find a suitable target article, we're all good now! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this system had much greater impacts than usual TDs, and have similar impacts as a tropical storm. Typhoon2013  (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Sounds pretty awful. Sca (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] US withdrawal from UNESCO

 * Very weak oppose I don't think this is as earthshattering and wrought with issues for the long-term future as the US leaving the Paris climate change agreement. The fact that the BBC article highlights that the reason to leave was more about the claim of anti-Israel stance and the lack of proper financial management, rather than direct issues affecting the US, makes this a strictly political move. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose the problem here is that it is not immediate, a consideration we overlooked with the Paris Agreement. In this case, it will not take effect until the end of 2018, and like the previous agreement, it will very likely go through a long process acting similar to a filibuster, sort of like what the Brexit process is going through. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IIRC, we actually did talk about the fact that when Pres. Trump announced the US would pull out of the Paris Agreement, we agreed it wasn't an immediate effect but the point of announcement of intentions (with almost no way to reverse it outside of Trump flipping his decision) would stop it. But that's IIRC. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, but needs blurb expanding to cover the withdrawal of Israel too. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – as Hornetzilla78 mentions, the actual withdrawal won’t occur for over a year now. So posting this is basically premature. Kirliator (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 and post now - it's in the news now, and we post lots of stuff that don't take effect for a while longer, e.g. elections. Banedon (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Withdrawal is not immediate, self-explanatory. 161.6.7.131 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom which is odd, this is hardly "fantastic news" (unless I missed the sarcasm flag), but it's worth noting that the proposed blurbs talk to the "announcement" not the withdrawal so most of the oppose is not valid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't "oppose per nom", since the nominator supports. "Fantastic" of course depends on a person, but for me the decision was pretty unexpected, more than the Paris Agreement. Brandmeistertalk  19:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly can when it appears to me that the nom is odd. Unless you mean "fantastic" in traditional sense, i.e. stuff of some fantasy, rather than it's current sense, i.e. brilliant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the nomination itself and is not a valid reason to oppose, so I'll assume you're joking this time. Cheers Brandmeistertalk  21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with what you think, more to do with what you wrote. Which is very odd.  And I'm not joking, so my oppose per nom stands.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, given the rule on a personal bias. Dixi. Brandmeistertalk  22:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, no idea what you're talking about. Your nomination is peculiarly formatted, and I oppose it.  Simple as that.  If an admin wishes to discount my oppose, I'm sure they'll be happy to do so, but in future it'd probably serve your purpose better to make more neutrally worded nominations. Bye now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The US has been out of UNESCO before. As others indicate, largely political in nature. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've withdrawn before? Then this is a political move that will be reversed by Trump's successor, unless it's Pence after the impeachment/resignation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Incertum quo fata ferunt. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Because of both the POV-pushing nature of the proposal which suggests elements of WP:NOTHERE ("Treating editing as a battleground"; "Little or no interest in working collaboratively") and because this is nowhere near news of the significance required for ITN. We are not here to report on every political stunt. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. This may be worth posting when the withdrawal actually goes through. Maybe we'll even have an article on the topic itself by then. For now, this news only really means a year of people talking politics. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per common sense. We should post these kind of stories when they actually make the news. Post it again at the end of 2018, when the withdrawal takes effect, if there is significant coverage then. Nsk92 (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Nsk92. It's in the news now. The article is decent. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now, when Trump's minders manage to smack some sense into him we will see if it actually goes ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it’s in the news, but it’s a basically a dumb decision for the U.S. just like the Paris agreement. I remember hearing that the majority of Americans opposed that withdrawal, and I bet the same will occur for this. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing baryon problem

 * Oppose, on numerous grounds. The blurb is misleading (only a fraction of them are claimed), the article is simply wrong (the problem has not been resolved), the results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed paper (just a couple of preprints), it's not even that new (similar claims have been made before) etc. This was an over-hyped press release which I'm amazed even made it into the mainstream media. On its merits, the latest results are something for the specialist astronomy magazines, nothing more. Much as I like seeing astronomy stories in ITN, this is far from a good one. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think the blurb is misleading or the article is wrong. Shull et al (in the article) clearly stated that 30% is missing, and de Graaff et al (in the preprint) say they can account for 30%. Assuming the results can be trusted, that's all the missing baryons. Banedon (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim in de Graaf et al. is 30% of the baryons, out of the 90% that were missing. It's right there in the abstract . Nowhere in the preprint do they claim that the missing baryon problem has been solved. And I'll say again: none of this has been peer reviewed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * de Graaf et al doesn't say that 90% were missing. It says that "Observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the local universe can account for only 10% of the baryon content". That's because the remaining 60% of the baryon content is not in galaxies and galaxy clusters (see Shull et al ). This was also touched on in the article. Banedon (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would still like a response to the above. I don't really mind if this isn't posted, but if there's an error in the article that's a different story. Banedon (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose seems deeply flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per both above; not-yet reviewed science, and the premise reported in the mainstream media seems off the mark. Also, they yet to figure out where my missing socks go from the dryer, so clearly this is a failed experiment. --M ASEM  (t) 14:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above statements, this is both somewhat misleading and not fully reviewed, plus I don’t really think anyone cares about these things. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Haumea rings

 * Support FA quality article, sufficiently updated. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, suggest pipelink to Haumea, as it brings the readers more directly to the updated content. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose A single ring... on a minor celestial object, not really a big deal. 2600:1015:B129:E23A:ECF0:75DD:5860:C405 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose we didn’t post the discovery of rings around 10199 Chariklo, we didn’t post the discovery of rings around 2060 Chiron, so it only makes sense that we do not post this ring system around Haumea. SamaranEmerald (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that because no one nominated an article containing text about a coincidentally similar event, and without any consideration over the quality of the articles themselves, Wikipedia should be forbidden from posting any such events on the main page ever again, regardless of how good the article being nominated is? That makes sense.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Noteworthy news event as the first ring around a trans-Neptunian object, and links to a featured article. Fishal (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, an inconsequential factoid with no possible further ramifications. I note that nobody bothered nominating the discovery of nearly 50% of the universe's missing regular matter in the Warm–hot intergalactic medium two days ago. I suppose that the reason the lay media picked up this profoundly uninteresting ring story is the same reason it got nominated here; it's easy. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, the reason for that is that we have no article on it. You try finding one (missing baryon problem is a red link). Banedon (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's hard. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: To claim "no possible further ramifications" indicates you are not familiar with planetary science. I don't blame you, but just opening the door to the idea that you might be speaking from ignorance. Banedon (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to identify anything important. "Oh, there are more rings out there than we expected" and "gosh, this fast-spinning object was in a collision and it has rings left over from this collision!" are not interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance is showing. I'll point you in the right direction. There are four inner solar system planets, none of which have rings. There are four outer ones, all of which have rings. Why is this so and what does this say about the processes that led to the formation of the solar system + the planets? I'm not going to say anymore however - it's hard to educate the ignorant, especially the ignorant who think they aren't ignorant. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You are comparing gas giants with an object that has been wanged recently. Anyway, your WP:OR is not backed up by sources including the sources in this nomination. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to the section regarding the ring to be very short and lacking several necessary sources. Kirliator (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm certainly ignorant and don't need it to be pointed out to me, but this is of little consequence to about 99.999999% of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. News coverage seems limited and this discovery doesn't seem particularly revolutionary. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support If the discovery of a ring system around a [dwarf] planet in the Solar System is not significant, then I'm wondering what the astronomic discovery should be to merit inclusion (discovery of extraterrestrial life?). I don't think that the speculative announcements about the discovery of Earth-like planets billions of light years away or the frequent discoveries of new natural satellites are worth more than this. The FA-quality article with the sufficient update is also in favour of.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote The Guardian article: "We didn’t expect to find a ring around Haumea, but we were not too surprised either."  Even those finding this don't consider it particularly groundbreaking. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support There is no requirement that the news be groundbreaking. We are not a news site. This is interesting, it's in the news, and we have a mission to educate.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This news is buried in Science sections and niche publications. It isn't top headline news or being widely reported on.  Kim Kardashian is often "in the news" but we don't post her.  We use editorial judgement, evaluations of article quality, and evaluations of newsworthiness to come to a consensus about what is posted. It is true there is no "requirement" for something to be groundbreaking but that does factor into newsworthiness. Our mission is to educate, but to educate about what people are likely to be looking for or interested in.  If this is buried in the media people aren't likely to be looking for it. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really a “big discovery”, considering that it is only a single, very thin ring around an object that is rarely if not ever mentioned in your high school astronomy course. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's an interesting observation, but its not groundbreaking in terms of astrophysics or astronomy. --M ASEM (t) 13:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A nice observation, but even the scientists involved were 'not too surprised' (see the Guardian source above) and it doesn't have any major implications, even within planetary science. We didn't post previous rings around small solar system bodies, and wouldn't post a new moon around Haumea, so I don't see why this should be treated differently. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM, 331, Masem. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the (science) news, article is FA. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a lot of major news sights either are not paying attention to this discovery, or that they do not care. Either way, this is not unusual as their have been other objects in the solar system that have confirmed ring systems. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Catalonia crisis

 * Oppose if so, then it isn't making the article. The last significant events noted in the article are almost 1 week old.  That's not frequent enough to qualify for an ongoing slot.  If, after some signficant time, you can demonstrate that this article is being updated regularly (every day or two for an extended period of time) then we may have something.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, just type "Catalonia" into Google News to see why... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So then why is that information not making it in to the Wikipedia article. Articles which do not have ongoing updates are not eligible for the ongoing slot.  The last meaningful information in the article is from October 6th.  If you're so eager to see it on the main page, why wasn't it worth it for you to update the article?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concern is is why I said "in principle." The article is not ready to go into ITN, and I don't personally have the time to update it myself. (Real life takes priority. Gasp.) Still, I believe that if/when it is updated, it should go up. Big items are and will be happening over the next eight days, thanks to the Spanish government's ultimatum. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry then. I guess I was confused by the bolded "support" you put in front.  Generally, that means "put this on the main page".  If instead you bolded the word "oppose" and put that in front, it would be easier to understand you meant this wasn't of sufficient quality.  Carry on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I've at least extended the bolding to cover "in principle." That's language used pretty frequently here—see, for instance, the Californian wildfires discussion—but I can spell it out better in the future. (I often prefer to support items "in principle" so that I can't be a hang-up if someone gets inspired to improve the nominated article.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, its still a developing story, but its one that is primarily about what's going on in political chambers rather than clashes. We should be following what we did for Brexit, a very similar story, which didn't get ongoing (as best I recall), but only four ITN points that were all entirely appropriate milestones. --M ASEM (t) 22:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, nominated article has not been edited since 22:27 9 October 2017‎. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not receiving incremental updates and I suspect it won't; I suspect if and when this is posted it will be for a single event. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose didn’t we already vote not to post this before earlier this month? Never mind that, the conflict, though serious isn’t really getting anywhere at the moment. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Ongoing: Humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico

 * Strong support as nominator. — Ecstatic Electrical , 01:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was suggested before. Focusing just on Puerto Rico when there are several other parts of the world that need humanitarian relief from storms this summer is very much western bias. --M ASEM (t) 01:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – same reason as Masem, this has been nominated before in the past, and we agreed not to post this to ITN, in addition there are other parts of the world that are in humanitarian crisises right now, not just Puerto Rico. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Articles are in good shape, and this is definitely a serious ongoing event. The fact that this is occurring in the richest country in the world is simply a disgrace. Davey2116 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um ... Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than the U.S and thus is technically richer. Kirliator (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't specify "per capita", did I? In terms of total resources, the U.S. is by far the richest. And even so, the U.S. is around 9th per capita, so there is no excuse for a humanitarian crisis like this. Davey2116 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Oppose, it is an issue, but there are other humanitarian crisises going on around the Earth at the moment as well: South Sudan, Somalia, and the Philippines are just a few other examples.  Concentrating on one without shining the spotlight on others is both hypocritical and biased. Kirliator (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we put them all in "ongoing"? Saying "this is an issue, but there are worse ones so we don't have to concern ourselves with any of them" is a bit disingenuous to me. Davey2116 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy close because there is no article concerning Humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico nominated! --Jenda H. (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing until Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico is updated regularly. Complaining about "western bias" is absolutely absurd. There is a whole "Please do not" above that basically says as much. ITN doesn't pick and choose what stories matter, actual news media does that. Come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing per reasons stated. The only reason to post this would be to right a great wrong. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] California wildfires

 * Strong support - I was going to add a nomination for the Tubbs Fire specifically, since that’s the one that has been on the news recently. However, someone beat me to it with this general nomination. — Ecstatic Electrical , 01:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, but WAIT- I support, but I think we should wait until the article has been fully developed and well sourced when new info is added. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support though I don't think it would hurt to wait 12-24 hrs to give time for more development of the article. Currently it is a decently sourced start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in Principle, Oppose Current blurb – the death toll is relatively small compared to the destruction these fires have caused. They have already destroyed 2000+ homes and businesses in the region, so I suggest posting an Alt Blurb mentioning the damage done by the fires rather than the death toll solely. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, and I would also support a blurb that mentions the number of structures destroyed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose looking at the templates at the bottom of the target article, this is an annual event. We have articles for Californian wildfires all the way to 2003 California wildfires, which also killed more than this year's blaze. I see no reason to post this. Causing more deaths than any in the past five years is an OK reason, but rather borderline since five years is an arbitrary benchmark. Even so however, California is but one state of the US. Given that every one of the other states of the US will have their own records for "deadliest wildfire in this state in the past ___ years", why post this? Banedon (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I came up with 5 years by looking back at the past 5 articles for wildfires in each year, so I don't actually know what the actual benchmark is (sorry that wasn't clear!) Best,  Spencer T♦ C 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * California is the stereotypical state for wildfires. Fun facts: It has the population of Spain and the size of several Englands. It was a country once. It's also 10% the diameter of the Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC) First Bear Flag of California (1846).svg
 * If we believed that, we'd make Californian governor elections ITNR and remove the same for Timor Leste. It has < 1/40 the population of Spain, is 1/100 the size of England, wasn't even a country until 2002, etc. Banedon (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. The death toll, now 17, is unusually high for a wildfire in a modern country, as is the number of structures destroyed.  However, I think the article needs further improvement before posting.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I agree that this is an annual event for California and/or the western US. This doesn't seem to yet be an atypical year in terms of damage or casualties. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Tubbs fire is currently blamed for 11 of the 17 civilian deaths. That would make it the third deadliest single wildfire since California started keeping records ~100 years ago.  The only CA fires with higher civilian (e.g. non-firefighter) death counts are the Cedar Fire (2003) and the Oakland firestorm of 1991.  I realize talking about 10-20 deaths is small potatoes compared to some of the things we post at ITN, but it is rare for people in a place like California to not be able to get out of the way of a wildfire.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle same reasons as Dragons flight. This is undoubtedly in the news. The "why is this special?" argument should only come into play if we are posting too many similar items (i.e. terrorist incidents). That this is an an annual event is not a reason not to post it; 60% of what we have up right now are annual events. This is all academic of course as the article itself is WAAAY short of FP-worthy. GCG (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Banedon & 2017 California wildfires. There have been several fires in California this year alone. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Death toll up to 17, 100+ missing, 2,000 structures destroyed. This is not a routine event. Sca (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Unusually high death toll and devastation of homes, widespread coverage. Banedon, yes California is a state of the US but it has 39 million people and is the world's sixth largest economy so it tends to get more attention than Wyoming or Vermont.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Re-'wildfires in California are an annual event' oppose votes. Hurricanes are also an annual event, yet we post those that are exceptionally bad. The level of damage, loss of life and the number of missing makes this year's fires among the worst on record. I reaffirm my support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality Yes, the wildfires happen every year, we usually don't post them unless their impact is considered significant (eg we posted the Washington ones either last year or the year before for the acreage burnt). The larger # of deaths here is significant - wildfires usually only get a few because states make active efforts to evacuate early. Oppose on quality because while we state 17+ deaths, the table seems to only show 2. --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment some examples of reasons for opposing similar events elsewhere in the world, from the previous few months at ITN (see if you can attach event to the comments):
 * Tragic yes, but a low fatality count. In addition, the [disaster] occurred in an area prone to such disasters.
 * Per [someone], low fatality count. And as [someone] states, we don’t post disasters that are virtually common in a nation that obviously suffers from overpopulation. If this did reach the triple digits in fatalities, then I would reconsider.
 * Violence in a known area of high violence (Ala mass gun shootings in the US) ... I don't see what makes this any different.
 * At this stage, deaths from flooding in [country] at this time of year is not unexpected, similar to deaths from torandoes in [country] or from hurricanes/typhoons. It's sad news, but also something that does happen regularly. If the floods worsen, then that might be valid to post.
 * These could all be adapted so very easily to this nomination. Banedon (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but oppose on current quality. This situation is really similar to 2017 Portugal wildfires which we posted. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 *   With the death toll at 23 and rising, 3,500 structures destroyed and 250 people missing, this is the No. 1 story in the English-speaking world – and it's a continuing story. One wonders whether some who oppose posting do so simply because it's happening in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Current top story on BBC: Catalonia: Spain issues deadline to separatists, Channel NewsAsia USS McCain collision was preventable, ship commander relieved of duties: US Navy, Bing news Boy Scouts Will Admit Girls, Allow Them to Earn Eagle Scout Rank, Google news ‘Frankly disgusting’: Trump lashes out at press, threatens NBC over news report he calls ‘pure fiction’. One wonders whether some who support posting do so simply because it's happening in the U.S. Banedon (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, from within the UK, the top story on the BBC news website is about Brexit. As ever, news websites are tailored to your locality. BencherliteTalk 21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't say it was the No. 1-ranking story on every notable English-language site in the world. It is on AP and NYT (multiple stories and a video), and it's in the second tier of stories at the Guardian. I am surprised at the lack of play on BBC at the moment (and somewhat surprised that it's high on the English-language site of DPA).
 * In this case I will admit a degree of U.S.-centrism in my view, in part due to having relatives in NoCal., but I don't see how it's possible to argue that the fires are not a significant, ITN-worthy story given their magnitude and the numbers of people forced to flee from their homes. Sca (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Would have supported if the article was sufficient. It is a major news story, and dominates reliable news sources.  However, the article itself is woefully stubby, and is not in any way representative of the sheer volume of information available.  If someone who wants this on the main page could expand and update the article to a reasonable depth, I would easily support this.  It'd probably have already been posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is weak as Jayron notes, but this is still in the news, even across the pond, so it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regional natural disaster with a relatively low death toll, as far as natural disasters go.  Sandstein   13:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't trying to judge the death toll from one disaster type to another, but relative to other disasters of the same type and in the same rough geographic area. (same logic with manmade incidents). --M ASEM  (t) 13:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Changing my vote per "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." The article is still pretty bare, but the scale of events have escalated and the coverage of this is so extensive that it would ridiculous not to post it. GCG (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree article is rather thin but at least the death toll has been updated and it's well illustrated with maps. Marked ready. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted — Article is thin, but wildfires tend to be the least cared for natural disasters on Wikipedia. There's just enough to post this to the main page and given magnitude relative to location, I think it's pertinent we do so. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment — I'm one of the editors who has been working on this article. I'm concerned that the "injured hundreds of others" part of the blurb is not well-sourced. The sources I've seen thus far have noted 100 people have been hospitalized. Though undoubtedly many more have suffered injuries, sources for more than 100 injuries are not currently in this article. It might be better instead to note the property destruction, as others have suggested. Funcrunch (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  Spencer T♦ C 02:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Catalonia

 * Weak Oppose – while this is a major political move. Catalonia is not an official nation yet.  When Catalonia officially becomes an independent nation, then I will support the nomination.  At the moment however, this is just a speech suggesting Catalonia should be independent, and thus it is not a nation...yet. Kirliator (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just a speech. Puigdemont is not declaring unilateral independence (which perhaps would have been ITN worthy) but just saying he wants to enter negotiations with the Spanish government. Not a "major political event" for me, sorry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was ready at my keyboard to nominate if a unilateral declaration of independence was made, but the news here is more of an absence of such an event. For now I'm opposed, but I will support when a unilateral declaration of independence is made (or possibly if a fixed and irrevocable date for such a declaration is set by Catalonia), even if this state is broadly unrecognised. Regardless, Carles Puigdemont should not be a bold article for this, instead 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis should be. --LukeSurlt c 18:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait – From the coverage I've seen we're a long way from anything being officially resolved. Keep in mind that those Catalans who are opposed to independence boycotted Sunday's dubiously legal referendum. Sca (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ongoing once this rolls off the bottom, and we can promote to a blurb if something else happens. Banedon (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should be following the same milestones for Brexit as here, barring any odd developments. This is not one of those milestones. --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose for now but will support if independence is officially declared. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose No major developments from the speech, except to put everything on hold pending negotiations with Madrid. Alex ShihTalk 01:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Catalonian independence is not yet official, until a formal declaration is made, my opposition remains standing. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rafe Mair

 * Support Looks like a solid article. No significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

 * Oppose. Some citations needed and there is a floating stub-sentence about his latest book that needs removing or (preferably) expanding with some sourced comment about what the book is about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I've resolved the issues raised by   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted ITN/R, all statements referenced in the article—great work by . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Y. A. Tittle

 * Support Sourcing is fine. As a note, the use of the SI cover and the card below are not appropriate uses of NFC, as these items are not subject of discussion (outside of a mention that he was on 4 SI's covers. That alone is not sufficient). I'm only pointing that out, not opposing because of this issue. --M ASEM (t) 17:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Was already rated a GA, death details updated and sourced. Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee.—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted, after removing one NFCC violating image. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Nate

 * Comment Prefer blurb 2 if we were to post it. 25 deaths is more significant than over a dozen injuries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentThis tropical storm has killed people in Central America (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras). It doesn't crossed Yucatan Peninsula. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Significant damage and loss of life in the Caribbean, but pales in comparison to other major storms this season (Harvey, Irma, Maria). Suggested another alt blurb to focus on Central America. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 It may not have gotten the same attention as the previous storms (because it's just a tropical storm hitting the US so home-turf media bias is in play), but it was just as devastating and should be posted. The article is in good shape without sourcing issues. --M ASEM (t) 16:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

RD: Kundan Shah

 * Oppose Unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many unreferenced paragraphs, article in extremely poor shape in addition to lack of international coverage. Alex ShihTalk 05:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose can excuse filmographies, but not the rest of the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove Northern Rakhine State clashes from ongoing

 * Support removal. Definitely has died down. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support removal – per Masem, this has not been covered regularly on major news networks. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed BencherliteTalk 20:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-Removal Support - the eyes of the world have turned away from this story. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, unfortunately. While there is still ethnic cleansing going on even as we speak, the lack of recent coverage means that we can no longer justify retaining it on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I agree. There is no attention to this issue anymore.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (peace)
Utterly, utterly pointless nomination. No announcement yet, so no article to review, and it's ITNR so we don't need to discuss the hypothetical merits of posting. But you've claimed your spot for a nominator's credit, so bravo. BencherliteTalk 09:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is official now, so I will say that the blurb should spell out the name of the organization, as many might not know what "ICAN" is. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add, though, that Lihaas, you should know better- nominations need sources to show newsworthiness. It could have waited a few hours. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "you should know better" ITNR is given. Just needed the actual "winner"Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An event's presence on the ITNR list does not remove the need to show that the event is in the news with sources. You have been here enough that you should know this. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You (or someone else) said the only requirement is an update.Lihaas (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only requirement to post an ITNR item is a quality update, assuming it is shown to be in the news, just as with every other nomination. Even an ITNR item won't be posted if it is not in the news. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb added, source added, correct name of the prize used, "awarded" not "wins" etc. Oppose because the ICAN article is far from ready to be posted. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. ICAN is far from close for main page posting between lack of sourcing and heavy proseline. Also agree that we need to spell out ICAN - I first read this and though "why did the domain register get it?" --M ASEM (t) 13:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Proseline" – ??? Sca (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSELINE, the block of text that is "On (date), (this happened)" under "Milestones". --M ASEM (t) 01:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. This needs some work. Referencing in particular is far below acceptable standards for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending article cleanup. Referencing is not adequate. Clarified claim about support from Ian Chappell. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Shoddy article state. Given that this is ITN/R anyway, the focus should be on getting the article up to par rather than rushing to nominate this simply on the basis of wanting to get credit for the eventual posting.--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article has been improved and now it can go to the main page.-- Seyyed(t-c) 00:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved since two days ago. Can you please check it again.-- Seyyed(t-c) 00:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still several unsourced paragraphs, including at least one CN, and one that has an unsourced quote. It's not ready to go. I'd not expect the proseline to be removed, but that still looks like an ugly mess too. --M ASEM  (t) 00:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall article quality remains quite poor. Referencing is abysmal. I've added multiple tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the article reads like a press release, the kind that mixes facts with praise for one's own work. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality, in that (among other issues such as citations needed) the article seems thoroughly POV (and uninformative, and, at least in my view, misleading) due to the lack of any criticism section. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Jhal Magsi suicide bombing

 * Oppose due to low fatality count and being in an area prone to these sorts of incidents. Also, does EVERY terrorist attack whether big or small need be to nominated for ITN, seriously?! SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support . An attack with 18 casualties is very tragic, but there will be strings of opposes and each'd state "a terrorist attack in a area where it is usual", I totally disagree because it came months last such terrorist attack in Pak. Amirk94391 (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support – 18 deaths should always be plenty. I've seen ITN feature much less impactful incidents. I'd like to downgrade on the amount of terrorism featured in ITN and only post things that seem to have a larger impact than "just" on the people involved. However, this is definitely not a "small" terror attack. If this happened anywhere in Europe, it would no doubt be posted right away. I don't really care too much either way, but I could switch to a full support if the article were improved even more. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose not seeing it "in the news" anywhere. Online editions re-posting wire stories doesn't count IMO. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incidents like these are frequent in that area of the world, so its unfortunate that it happened, but not news-worthy in that regard (We don't go by body count for any of these) --M ASEM (t) 13:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – same reason as Masem, attacks like these are common in Pakistan. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose nominations for terrorist attacks are overused and need to be cut down for ITN. Kirliator (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - while I am wary of geocentrism, this story has not appeared on my pretty diverse newsfeeds, and occurred in a region where attacks with such numbers of fatalities are sadly frequent. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Terrorist attack in an area with frequent terrorist attacks. News coverage seems limited(likely due to the frequency of these events in that area). 331dot (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Literature)

 * Oppose until Ishiguro's page fully meets BLP standards. Specifically, the "Literary Characteristics" section needs additional citations. And the bibliography section ("Works") needs citations and/or ISBN's. Christian Roess (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . I've used the Nobel Prize's biography they've just published as a source for all the works listed in the article. --LukeSurlt c 12:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. The final two works listed under the "Screenplays" section still need citations. Also, the three works listed under the "Film adaptations" section will require sourcing, as well. Christian Roess (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also covered by that same source. In-line citations added. --LukeSurlt c 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The article is in quite good condition. --Thi (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We do not usually include the "flowery" quote given by the committee in the blurb for literature (spot checking last decade of ITN/Cs). I have offered one I think it more appropriate for posting as a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. Article looks decent enough on a quick look. It's a bit embarrassing that we can get this into shape faster than the chemistry or physics prizes... <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sad fact that academics simply don't get broad coverage of their life and work until they get things like Nobels, while novelists/writers get recognition for their works as they go along. See NPROF. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A huge amount of source material on Weiss, Thorne & Barish was published prior to their Nobel win; it just didn't make it onto Wikipedia. I'm sure similar things can be said about other scientific Nobel prize winners. It's just our systematic bias at work again. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2. However, should we say "Japanese-born British novelist"?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since he has lived in the UK since the age of 5, I think that would be misleading.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

ALT3 nationality irs irrelevant, we don't post it on other blurbs.Lihaas (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 pending one cn fix - There is one paragraph that absolutely needs a source, I've tagged it, but once that is fixed, this is ready to go. --M ASEM (t) 23:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article has reached criteria.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing is now sufficient. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted BencherliteTalk 09:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RD: Liam Cosgrave

 * Oppose Unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a lot of work on referencing to be suitable. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Some of the worst referencing I can remember seeing on an article about such a prominent political figure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed some references. Sheila1988 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I realize you are a bit new to the project, but articles being considered for linking on the main page are generally held to a high standard. This article is far below those standards and badly fails our guidelines for WP:BLP, which also applies to the recently deceased as it is substantially unreferenced. Fairly dramatic improvement will be required before this can be seriously considered for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Although I'm not new, I'm also not too familiar with the standards expected for RD (or for blurb items either - I usually avoid commenting on quality unless I see something bad - I rarely say I think quality is adequate and usually say that I'll leave others be the judge of that). If I (and/or others) clear up all the remaining Citations Needed (I've already cleared up about half of them), would that be enough (at least in your opinion), or would more be needed, and, if so, what? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . The usual standard for referencing is that any claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial need a cite. From a practical perspective this generally means that every paragraph, again with some commonsense exceptions, should have at least one reference. Many, if not most, will need more. CN tags are helpful signposts especially if the article doesn't have massive gaps in referencing as is the case here. But any paragraph w/o a cite should be looked at closely. There are other standards including that we do not post articles with orange maintenance tags. Thanks for your work on this article and on the project more broadly. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification, . I'll have to look at the article more closely, but my initial expectation is that the task has now become too big, at least for me. The standard you mention seems higher than that expected for normal articles (which, if I remember right, is actual CNs, and over 50% probability of getting a CN), but then it's presumably fair enough that a higher standard is required for front page articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed all the requested citations, but there are still many paragraphs with no citations, and I probably won't even try to supply those (and certainly not for another 12 hours or so), so unless somebody else decides to work on it, it probably won't be brought up to standard in time. But, if so, I guess it won't be a global calamity :) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] WNBA Finals

 * Oppose principally that WBNA is not one of the ITNR (which we have been over in past to decide against inclusion), and that there's nothing special about this specific tourney to make it appropriate to include. --M ASEM (t) 14:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose depth of coverage in this article is insufficient. If someone added a synopsis of each game in sufficient detail and references, this would be main-page ready.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the merits as rightfully or wrongly the WNBA does not get the attention of the NBA. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to support this, but the article needs a prose update. ITN/C screams and wails about "systemic bias", but the male bias is easily curbed by improving articles like this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do note we have have talked specifically about the WBNA before when discussing how to present sporting events that have male and female brackets, and my recollection and spot-check is that WNBA simply lacks the broad coverage (moreso, anything outisde of the US) of the NBA finals to make it as equivalent as the NBA. This is in contrast to the US Open for tennis (as where men and women's events are occuring simultaneously) where we agree we should post both due to that. I don't want to make it sound that we're being gender discriminatory here, just that WNBA is simply not popular and fails to usually make international waves. --M ASEM (t) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)I would agree if the two leagues were equal in terms of attention, revenue, fans, etc. They aren't, however wrong that is. That's not the fault of anyone here. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that's simply a result of it being a single-country event. For comparison, if you compare the Women's Cricket World Cup (which we posted - and then added to ITN/R) that was of course making headline sports news around the various countries involved.  I believe we also posted the Women's Rugby World Cup for the same reason.  But the main point is that both were multi-national events. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - whether due to sexist disparities in media attention or not, the WNBA does not attract anywhere near the attention of its male counterpart, and our job is not to right this. There is a simple lack of international significance and relevance in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a major sport/league. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Nobel Prize (Chemistry)

 * Comment Dubochet's article is fine, but the other two need work. --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Per Masem, those two articles need more work.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lance Russell

 * Two of the awards in the "Championships and accomplishments" section (Combat Sport Pro hall of fame and Wrestling Observer Newsletter Best Television Announcer) need references but otherwise the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Second has been referenced. The first has been removed because I couldn't find a reference...so most likely it was incorrect or someone added it as self-promotion. Nikki  ♥  311   19:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Now up to standards, so marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex ShihTalk 14:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Every single Yahoo account hacked
oppose no article highlighted and anyways Yahoo is more or less gone Ah! someone saw the porn in my email ;( Lihaas (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the article that I've worked on in the past and updated today with this news. --M ASEM (t) 02:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Event occurred in 2013, and no article. EternalNomad (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: incremental update to a story already well covered in the past. A non-event-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stale as the biscuits in my pantry.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Who still has a Yahoo address these days anyway?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Me! Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was going to nominate this after updating the article, but as we did post the initial discovery in Dec 2016, this is an incremental update. --M ASEM (t) 02:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jalal Talabani

 * Support no concerns; referencing looks good.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and marked as ready. Article in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Klaus Huber

 * Comment The "Works" section is unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No the lists of the two publishers are given on its top. Do you need which is where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , is there a reason why the list of works is incomplete? If it's a selected list, what criteria have been used for making the list? BencherliteTalk 11:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know. I met the article, with this particular selection. In the works section, I only added links. Francis Schonken taught me not to say "selected", so I dropped that work. A complete list of his published works would be long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "Francis Schonken taught me not to say "selected"" – incorrect. A section title with "(selection)" without indicating where the selection comes from (thus suggesting it is a Wikipedia editor's POV) is of course as bad as using "selected" in a section title (without indicating where the selection comes from). A selection defined by an external source is usually as tacky (in that case NPOV guidance would suggest one would need at least two independent external sources giving exactly the same selection, which is of course rarely the case). A list should appear without such POVvy qualifiers in the title. If it is for instance all published works, all recorded works, all works with an opus number, or whatever useful criterion, then name that criterion (e.g. "Works by opus number"). In all other cases: no subjective qualifiers in section titles. In that case the list remains open for future editing. The intro of a list (introductory paragraph, lead section) should of course be clear about factual and appropriate selection criteria, if any (e.g. in the case there's a single published biography one could say "the composer's biography lists 20 vocal works, 36 piano pieces and 7 works for orchestra", or whatever is appropriate). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. So, in the short term, could the existing two commercial sources be used to expand the list of works? Does the lack of a complete list of works preclude the article from being posted at RD? Would you support here or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "Does the lack of a complete list of works preclude the article from being posted at RD?" – no, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "Would you support here or not?" – I'm indifferent, but as far as the "list of works" is concerned there shouldn't be an objection any more from that corner afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis, I think you support what I said: drop "Selected" when we have no idea what the former editor(s)' criteria were, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rephrased a bit – seems OK now, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support He is a notable regional leader and his article looks good.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is sufficiently referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the works section needs specific referencing - just because those companies published compositions by him does not verify that these specific compositions are his or that they were published by them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who published the works is not at issue here? But you're suggesting that those two sources are unreliable in this context? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor who know the topic area tell me those sources are reliable and I have no reason to disbelieve them, so that is not the nature of my objection. My objection is that saying "Reliable-Company published Composer A's compositions" does not verify that Composition X is a composition by Composer A or that this work was published by Reliable-Company, we need a citation that this is a work by the relevant composer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm still a little surprised that you seem to be suggesting that either of these reputable publishing houses would not know of the works written by Huber or should not be trusted to report this reliably. If I am still misconstruing your comments, I do apologise. I'm sure any suggestion as to better sources would be very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised because we had the same thing for Killmayer. I'll see what I can do. It should not be too hard because the Ricordi pieces are all on one page. Schott is better organized. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, done. They were all from the Ricordi page. I added one from Schott. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've spot checked a few and everything mentioned in those was verified on the linked page, much of it very nearly verbatim. I don't have enough subject knowledge to know whether that is an issue or not though (and don't have time now to learn, or work out where the best place to learn would be) so I've withdrawn my objection. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even the spelling mistakes were copied ;) - It's facts: title, dedication, year(s), scoring, text authors and some of their titles - nothing that I would paraphrase. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So, 48 hours on and we have no opposes here? Admin attention needed? Ready to post? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Alex ShihTalk 08:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (Physics)

 * Oppose on quality at the moment. Weiss' article is mostly good, just a couple of citations needed for awards (which I'm about to look for), Thorne's article starts well but needs attention in the latter part and Barish needs significant referencing improvements to most sections. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weiss' article now fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality of all three, but mainly at Thorne's article. Weiss is okay (but that long list of publishes seems CV-ish and unnecessary for WP), and Barish could see some TLC to improve it a bit. --M ASEM (t) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Paul Otellini

 * Oppose Unreferenced paragraphs in the "career" section. Please ping me when you have fixed this and I'll probably support it.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Arthur Janov

 * Support: Article isn't long, but it is clean and well-referenced. Janov may not be a household name, but his "primal scream" theory is widely known and has been influential in the field. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced, looks fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post posting support. It's Alright, It's OK. His legacy with certainly live on. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post post posting support Don't forget Tears For Fears. Britmax (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD] RD: Tom Petty

 * Support would support a blurb. Highly influencial and respected artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Martinevans123.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Exceptionally poor referencing. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. I am adding a ref improve tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article quality is hugely improved. Still a couple CN tags but not enough to hold up posting. -12:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not even close to ready. Citations needed and a close paraphrasing concern. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. As Ad Orientem points out, this isn't just a few tags, and by the time those are all fixed, a blurb might be too late. --M ASEM (t) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weakly support blurb on grounds of significance (today is unusual because the Las Vegas incident has disrupted broadcasts, but under normal circumstances he'd pass the "would television networks change their scheduled programming to run a tribute?" test). Oppose both blurb and RD on grounds of quality—there are too many uncited sections in the article, including some material that would be potentially legally problematic if it turned out to be untrue. &#8209; Iridescent 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! The close paraphrasing tag was added in error and I have removed it. However referencing is unacceptable. Apologies for the screw up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The level of attention the article is now receiving suggests it will be fixed relatively soon. So I'd suggest those who currently oppose might want to reassess sooner than after the usual 24 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. except I see that folks are still disputing whether he's actually dead?


 * Oppose. Not even confirmed he's dead:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.249 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Close as earlier death reports seem to be mistaken. EternalNomad (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment rumor is that he's been taken off life support, probably death is nigh. Suggest a new nom when it's confirmed (might not be for a day or to) and strong oppose blurb when it happens. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I for one hope that this was simply a misinterpreted release and that he no longer requires life support as opposed to being taken off life support due to brain death. My parents bought and listened to Full Moon Fever when I was two, and they are still my earliest memories of life 28 years later. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's confirmed he has now passed (family/publicist statement in this LA Times article ). New nom or reopen this one? Nohomersryan (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the closure comment I went ahead and did it. Feel free to yell at me if I messed up. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD at a minimum. I'd support a full blurb for Tom Petty. Kurtis (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Should be included in recent deaths after some cleanup, and if we can get it up to standard in time, a full blurb for sure. Alex ShihTalk 06:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I think there's only one section that has no refs, but hopefully that'll be addressed soon.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Article doesn't appear to have any outstanding referencing issues and notability, as a member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and top-selling music artist, is obvious. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Can't ignore this much longer on the main page. If no blurb, his name needs to show up soon in the RD list. Landroving Linguist (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, but support RD if the article is up to scratch - nothing unusual about his death, and he wasn't such an international megastar that would warrant a blurb, particularly as it would push down some other very significant news events that have happened recently.
 * Relevance or lack of relevance to several countries is not a factor. He sold 80 million albums. Although Bollywood is almost exclusive to India, I would support a blurb for someone whose contribution to Bollywood was equal to Petty's on rock music Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, each candidate is simply assessed on its own merits, and not on how it compares with existing items. Whether or not it will "push down" anything is not usually considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Discography is un-sourced, but I don't care, they're all blue links and well referenced themselves. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Definitely notable enough for a RD mention. Rest in peace, Mr. Petty. MereTechnicality   ⚙  12:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MereTechnicality, I don't disagree with your sentiments. But RD inclusion depends only on article quality. Comparative notability will just determine whether he gets a blurb or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support RD (eventually, when the article is decent). Oppose blurb. "I heard him on the radio a lot" does not equate to being a Thatcher or a Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly point out all the current indecency? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb - not Thatcher or Mandela, but certainly well above George Michaels and on par with Prince. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 12:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Prince and George Michaels and that German Chancellor were mistakes, not precedent. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're saying that it was community consensus that posting Helmut Kohl with a blurb was "a mistake"? I don't recall it being pulled. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this is not the right place to argue the point, but you're seriously calling one of the most important figures in the Cold War, German reunification and EU integration "that German Chancellor" and not worth a blurb? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Similar thing as Anarcho-authoritarian here, but Prince broke the "most views in a calendar week" record on Wikipedia with 13 million (that David Bowie broke only three months before having died on a Sunday and thus had the entire week, and Prince died on a Thursday and so had less than half a week to achieve that, if a week is defined as any period of 7 days (April 21 to 28) he had almost 17 million views) and temporarily broke his own article, and you're saying his posting to a blurb was a "mistake"? I see only 5 people giving something other than unilateral support, and all of those were either "wait until we know it's him" or about quality, and that was one person, and the issue was rectified. Now I presume you'll be saying posting Chuck Berry was a mistake? -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  15:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL even the DE wiki didn't blurb Helmut Kohl, and yes, I'm calling that blurb a mistake. My threshold for a death blurb is simple: media coverage. Thatcher, Mandela, Michael Jackson it was DAYS of round-the-clock coverage and IMO those stories warranted a blurb. Hell, even Hugh Hefner (for which people were screaming 'support blurb') was out of the headlines by the afternoon. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well ok, you can call it a mistake, by all means. That's not quite the same as an agreed community consensus that it was a mistake? "LOL". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus was wrong, and I said as much at WT:ITN and fortunately we're pushing back against the absurdity somewhat. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think consensus could be wrong or right. It's just consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Prince was not a mistake. See this, this, this, for that matter this. There was plenty of coverage, even days and weeks after. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  18:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Marked as Ready This looks good enough for posting. I suggest RD for now while discussion on a blurb continues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Discussion about a blurb can continue, I don't see consensus for or against at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb. I'm probably something of a hard-liner on this, but I tend to think blurbs for deaths should be reserved for only the most impactful of individuals.  While he had a long and celebrated career, I don't think he rises to that very highest of levels appropriate for a blurb.  Dragons flight (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb based on historical standard and policy, weakly support based on recent requirements creep (say, posting Maryam Mirzakhani as a blurb) but overall somewhere between weak and normal support partly based on the whole kerfluffle with the LAPD and CBS . -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  14:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb because RD is fine for this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Obviously a very significant musician, but not quite at the very high level to warrant a blurb in my view. Neljack (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support RD when article referenced. I had a look at the discography in the article which appears to be unreferenced. Otherwise article appears to be fine. Might support a blurb but I won't die in a ditch over it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Governor General of Canada

 * Additional nominator comment: see WP:ITN for installation of preceeding GG. -- Natural  R X 16:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Unless there is widespread international coverage of this, I would oppose. The Governor General's role is limited and largely dictated by convention.  As stated, the GG represents the head of state, and is not head of state themselves.  331dot (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose pointless figurehead. Someone recently proposed changing ITN/R so that the actual person in charge (in Canadas case, the PM) would be the item posted but they were ruthlessly shouted down so instead we get to have these occasional good faith but ultimately doomed nominations. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As detailed further down, that "figurehead" does have real power and occasionally exercises it, even in modern times. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A change in Canada's PM is posted with a general election(as it was with Trudeau). 331dot (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable person selected for Governor General, and only happens once every few years. 38.88.111.242 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per 331dot, but only weakly, since there's precedent for posting it. Banedon (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The position of Governor General is purely ceremonial. Payette has no real political power, and this development is pretty insignificant. Kurtis (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Compared to Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean, who were appointed as the first Asian/black Governor Generals respectively, the appointment of Julie Payette doesn't seem to carry the same coverage nor significance from what I have seen. Alex ShihTalk 06:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully oppose - As above. This is a representative of the British monarch in Canada who has a ceremonial role. Yes, the Queen also only has a ceremonial role, but is the official head of state. Also as above, this would be slightly more notable had she been the first female, but that ship has sailed. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not totally a ceremonial role. Michaëlle Jean was directly influential in retaining the government of Stephen Harper (2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute). In 1975, Australian G-G Sir John Kerr actually did dismiss one prime minister and shifted the government to the opposition party (1975 Australian constitutional crisis). So there is real power there, and even in modern times it is occasionally exercised. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Monarch Airlines

 * Support. Given the number of people stranded, this seems notable in the business/airline world. The context of the term "administration" wasn't clear to me at first(probably my US language bias).  I wonder if it would be clearer to state simply the agency now operating the airline is doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Administration (law) (linked in the proposed blurbs) is the normal way of reporting this in the UK and noting the name of the administrators without the context of it being "in administration" would be very confusing to British readers as who the administrators are specifically is almost never very important (certainly at this stage) unless there has been recent controversy about them (which I'm not aware of in this instance). I'm not sure there is going to be a better way than linking, but someone with more experience of business stories may have a good suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could use the term "bankrupt" or "insolvent" instead, although I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate. Smurrayinchester 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We could just note that it's ceased trading/operating. The legal status isn't that important. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  13:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bankrupt" is not quite correct as administration is usually a way to avoid declaring bankruptcy and insolvency is functionally correct but slightly misleading. The administrators will (by law) try to maintain the business as a going concern if they can and try to get as much money to creditors as they can. It's similar to (but not the same as) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a "going concern" then why are all those people bring airlifted? They're bankrupt. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I recognize the sizeness is what makes this notable, but I would argue that this falls under a "first world problem", in that 100,000+ people are inconvenienced while a airline basically closed up shop on them, and then need to find alternate arrangements to get home. Also, I would avoid the term "airlift" (I don't see it used in either Guardian or BBC), as the aircraft being used for this are just planes chartered from other airlines (commercial), not military. --M ASEM  (t) 13:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think an airlift has to be military (eg 1990 airlift of Indians from Kuwait). Anyway, here are some reliable sources that use the word: Independent, Mirror, Record. Smurrayinchester 13:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When I read "airlift" even in the Kuwait article, it implies "for military reasons", and there it was for evacuation of civilians. I do see a quote in the BBC article that is "biggest peacetime repatriation", which makes a lot more sense for this, however. --M ASEM  (t) 13:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but all three blurbs are misleading. Nobody has been left stranded anywhere outside UK. CAA have arranged alternative flights for all passengers affected. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this was a slow news day, maybe. But we've got a lot going on in the world from Catalonia to Iraq to Las Vegas. Can't see that it meets the high significance required for ITN. We have no idea whether the business will be able to restructure and continue operating. In addition, 10 other airlines have ceased operating this year (see Category:Airlines disestablished in 2017); did we post any of them? AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't post what isn't nominated, and off the top of my head I don't believe any of those were. That isn't reflective of its newsworthiness.  331dot (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support article is good, top of business news. This is, after all, "in the news" not "what I think SHOULD BE in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Query. Can someone explain the "airlift" part of this?  I would have assumed that if your flight is cancelled then it is mostly a matter of arranging travel of another airline covering the same route (ideally at around the same time as you planned to travel anyway).  Are they actually sending special planes to pick people up?  Is that happening at times other than when the people would have been expected to fly anyway?  I am trying to understand the degree to which this story is about an "airlift" as opposed to being about a bankruptcy.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume that these 110,000 people had paid for tickets back home, which they now can't use if the airline is not operating. They also don't want to(or can't) purchase new tickets.  The BBC states that the CAA is sending 30 planes to take these people home. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 30 planes making how many trips? Even with the world's largest passenger planes, 30 trips would amount to no more than about 10% of the people said to be affected.  By itself 30 planes actually doesn't sound that impressive, especially given that Monarch ordinarily operated 35 planes.  And how is it different from just flying the routes Monarch was supposed to fly anyway, except with no outbound passengers?  Also, if all you want to do is get people home, wouldn't it usually still be more cost-effective to pay to buy them a ticket on a different airline.  The article seems to suggest they are doing some of that as well.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well 1, I think it's not Monarch doing the flights, but that's the interesting part of the story. Some airline here in the US went bust a few years ago with 3 days notice, they didn't leave people stranded. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically the CAA of the UK had to create a "ad hoc" airline from the 30 planes they got from other carries. However, they are definitely not "rushing" as one would an evacuation: they are telling vacationers, for example, to keep to their schedules if they are already out of the country. And its likely not all 100,000 ppl need to be transported on these, only those that cannot make easy alternate arrangements with other carriers. It does sound like the CAA is encouraging this other carriers to be as helpful as possible to reduce the load they have to take. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dragons flight, my reading of it is that a total of 110,000 currently have no means to get home. But these holiday-makers' return journeys will be spread over the next two weeks or so (whatever the length of the average Monarch holiday is) - they won't all be trying to come home at once. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Seems significant on the sheer numbers. The Guardian is calling it "the UK’s biggest peacetime repatriation".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is posted, I think altblurb II should be there, as "go into administration" is vague to an average reader compared to "declared insolvent" which is more precise. Brandmeistertalk  16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AusLondonder. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, its a 'first world problem'. Not significant enough to receiving global coverage. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support since the number of affected people is quite large (110k). Further while there have been many more airlines discontinued this year, most of them simply merged with other airlines, or when they closed shop passengers were transferred to other airlines. This is different in the sense that passengers are actually stranded. I'd switch to full support if there's a comparison between the size of this airlift and other airlifts somewhere. Sources say it's the UK's largest peacetime operation, implying that there's been a larger peacetime operation by some other country. Banedon (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose per above.Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Opposestale at this point, 110,000 people temporarily inconvenienced is a shame, but compared to other transportation glitches/storms, etc., it is small potatoes. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - stale. If the story develops to incorporate an acquisition by Ryanair as is being mooted in the media, then a blurb should be considered that addresses both the corporate consolidation and administration. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Medicine)

 * Talk about the devil, just mentioned it in ITNT. Week has begun. Anyhoo, no nonsense posting IFF there is a relevant update.Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I spot one or two statements that could use sourcing in Rosbash's article but otherwise pretty much there, and both Hall's and Young's are fine. --M ASEM (t) 13:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. One citation required in Hall's article but that's it (and it doesn't seem like a controversial one). Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Articles are mostly good to go and topic is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the topic (Nobel prize) is on the list at WP:ITN/R which means that notability is not in question, only article quality. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Exactly the sort of educational and informative news an encyclopedia should feature. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * why is exactly why it's on WP:ITN/R and we're only discussing the article quality. We're just waiting for one citation to be fixed on Hall's article and an uninvolved admin to post it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed the [ready] marker for this as Hall's article is still missing a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the unreferenced statement from Hall's article. --LukeSurlt c 16:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted BencherliteTalk 09:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Las Vegas shooting

 * Support: If early reports are accurate, this is one of the worst mass shootings of all time. Article is fairly short but will almost certainly be expanded in the coming hours and days. Notability is clear and the article is well-referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment, article is still a stub. Will support once expanded. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support now that article has been expanded. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, no question. He had a goddamn machine gun, for Christ's sake. This is likely going to be among the worst shootings in US history. The only barrier to posting this quickly should be a reasonably informative article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too soon.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for now, but clear support when ready. Big international news story already. ansh 666 09:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh, ooh, what did trump bloviate? ;0Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Too soon. There has to be some data about the shooter, the motive (such as terrorism), a reasonably accurate casualty count (whether he indeed made the high score list) and so on. Wnt (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * LVPD says he killed at least 20 people, which would already put this event 8th on the global list of deadliest mass shootings. That's still likely to rise.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * neutral but the article is crap. needs to be expanded better to be notable.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify it was ongoing at the time, I was not following it as I was busy with Catalonia, but obvious support.Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 'Support subject to article quality. The empty section needs to be either removed or populated. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for inclusion without further delay because of its magnitude. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support International coverage, mass shooting at a well known international destination. NYT how reporting shooters name . --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support 20 is already quite a lot for a mass shooting outside trouble spots, and most sources are now saying the death toll is at least 50 which means this may have exceeded even the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (I'm not sure if 50 includes the shooter, and early death tolls even widely repored ones can sometimes drop slightly). Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the article says 20 not 50 though. else that will make the Mumbai article below as notable.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no Mumbai mass shooting below. The closest I'm aware of is the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which had far more casulties but was non a simple mass shooting and in any case IIRC was posted. Please note a stampede is not a mass shooting. (It's possible for people to be killed by a stampede as a result of a mass shooting, but it wasn't the case for the example below.) By the same token, we may or may not post a natural disaster with a 20 people death toll but 20 people isn't a big death toll for a natural disaster. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was atalking about casualty count. Anyhoo, now this is clarly notable.Lihaas (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The number of casualties seems high even for a country like the United States where such incidents are fairly frequent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it is the deadliest mass shooting in US history.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support – The well-regulated militia strikes again. Sca (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support A senseless and unthinkable act of violence. Perhaps we should indicate that this is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history (which has been reported by many reliable sources)? EternalNomad (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support and agree that we need to emphasize that this is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. Ancora e ancora.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be very concerned about the POVness if adding "deadliest mass shooting" to the existing blurb. I have zero doubts that the stories this week from the US will be gun control related, and we know there's going to be an infinite amount of finger pointing of how this guy got a machine gun and the rifles they found in his room. We know this is going to be reason to ask why we have such lax gun control laws, but as an encyclopedia, we should not being trying to engage in how bad our control laws we have, and pointing out how bad this was leans in that direction. --M ASEM (t) 14:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that even you evidently assumed there was a machine gun involved (no article I've read, including our own, mentions automatic weapons, nevermind that actual machine guns are not generally portable and operable by a single individual) and for some reason our own article goes into a tangent about American gun laws, ingeniously pointing out that semi-automatic weapons are legal in Nevada as they are everywhere else in the country (there's no legal distinction made and it's completely unclear why semi-automatic action as opposed to various other types of firearm action was important here), I'd say you are very, very correct that we should be wary of bias. The article as it stands clearly wants to appear neutral while being not-so-subtly antigun, which is not our duty here.  Just the facts will suffice. - Lvthn13 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, while I haven't read any official word as to what the weapons were, witnesses have described it as a machine gun . 331dot (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that this was the most serious mass-shooting in U.S. history, if accurate and reliably sourced, is a neutrally stated fact and need not be omitted merely because someone might draw a conclusion from it or cite it in support of a position. Wikipedia does not take positions on social or political issues itself, but presents facts&mdash;but one of the values of presenting neutrally worded, reliably sourced facts is to help people become better-informed. If there is non-neutral language in the article, that should be discussed and if necessary remedied there, but it is a separate issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is principally with the brevity of space we have at ITN, not the fact itself. In context of a full article, it absolutely deserves mention, as there is more than enough space to into any necessary qualifiers or comparisons. In an ITN, the short space we have for it to highlight that one fact makes it stand out as pro-strong gun control because we don't have any other context we can give in 25-some words. It creates sensationalism that we should be avoiding. Note though that under-riding this concern is the implicit "knowledge" that the US has lax gun control laws. If it were, say, Canada, or Europe, or the like, that implicit idea of those countries having lax gun control laws is not there, and therefore it wouldn't raise the same issue, and thus may be reasonable to include if that were the case. Here, though, the fact it is a gun crime in the US immediately slants the issue. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I scanned a few articles but never saw this one. I can see why someone might read this and, knowing no more, take that at face value, but there almost certainly was not a machine gun involved, which is exactly why I emphasize that we should exercise caution.  There doesn't appear to be many details available right now, and the temptation to fill in some of the blanks with lurid and unlikely descriptions of menacing weapons should be avoided.  As for mentioning that this may be the most deadly mass shooting in US history, that is a neutral fact and one I myself am neutral on, but I question the real importance of such narrowly defined trivia - it uses criteria for specific type of mass murder and a single country.  Singling out American mass shootings seems to me very much akin to systemic bias. - Lvthn13 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, should the death toll climb about 67, this event will have a potential claim as the deadliest mass shooting ever anywhere. 67 is the number of victims shot in the 2011 Norway attacks which currently holds that unfortunate distinction (not counting the additional 10 deaths during those attacks that were not caused by gunfire).  Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Edmond Maire

 * Support article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] First same-sex marriage in Germany

 * Strong oppose primarily because we already decided that Germany being the Nth country to allow same-sex marriages in EU is not news. --M ASEM  (t) 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. I'm not sure what the original blurb is trying to say exactly since I can't seem to find it all in the article, but I'm leaning oppose because I don't think ITN was meant to be a generic timeline listing when same-sex marriage happens in (many) different countries. If I wanted that, I'd go here. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we were going to post this, it should have been when it was decided originally(and we rightfully decided not to then). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Why did we post the United States legalising same-sex marriage, with all editors in favour, if the idea of posting Germany is so ludicrous? Not to mention countries before we have posted. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was still full ban on same-sex marriage in some US states. Contrary there were same-sex unions in whole Germany since 2001. So difference is not so big as in the US case. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The blurb is too long. A better hook would be, "Germany is the [insert number]th EU nation-state to legalize same-sex marriage, [insert number] years after [insert first EU nation-state that did it].Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Germany became the 12th EU country to pass a law recognising same-sex marriage in July. Today it became the 13th EU country in which same-sex marriage is legal (Malta passed a law 5 days after Germany did, which came into effect on 1 September). The Netherlands became the first country in the EU (and the world) to legalise same-sex marriage in December 2000. There are now 24 countries worldwide that perform or recognise same-sex marriage in all or part of their territory. I'm not aware of any criterion by which Germany can claim to be the first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We could post that Germany is the last Western European country to legalize gay marriage. Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, Italy has not legalized gay marriage yet. Count Iblis (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There were official same-sex unions in Germany from 2001 as pointed out above, couples even able to adopt children, - it's not as big a change as it sounds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Masem has pointed out, we discussed this already in June.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is pretty routine nowadays. There are 200+ countries in the world.  We don't need to put this on the front page every single time same sex marriage is legalized.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[Posted as blurb only:] Catalonia
Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017 is scheduled for today. Probably together with 2017_Spanish_constitutional_crisis in Ongoing? --Tscherpownik (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for ongoing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rubber bullets now being fired.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait - need to see how this plays out over the course of the day. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only strong oppose ongoing. This is actually "in the news" now and a blurb is appropriate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only later today when this has all shaked out. Blurb should mention Spanish attempts to physically prevent voting and/or the fact the referendum is illegal. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait − A significant story beyond Spain in view of minority separatist strains elsewhere, but posting should come after events or effects become more clear. Sca (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is major international news, especially in light of the violent actions of the Spanish authorities. Federal police attacking regional police and firefighters in a European democracy is unprecedented in modern times. AusLondonder (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure what we're waiting for. Two substantial and well-written articles here. Both deserve a front page link. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb that indicates the result from the referendum and mentions the violence that has already resulted in several hundreds injured.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, this needs to be up. Ambivalent about ongoing – I can see the arguments for waiting a bit (perhaps until the blurb is pushed off the recent events list if it's still ongoing). Leaning towards support for ongoing though just because I am sure it will still be in the news then, but, WP:CRYSTAL. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  17:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb only but Wait – the referendum only lasts 24 hours, which is not enough time for such an event to be posted as ongoing. As usual we should wait for the results before officially posting the blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted as blurb only. There appears to be consensus to post this, and whilst we usually wait for results, this is somewhat moot in this case as the Spanish authorities have already declared that it is invalid anyway (Rajoy has just said "no referendum has been held in Catalonia today") and the news reports are mostly based round the unrest during the process.  Obviously editors may wish to tweak the blurb to reflect such unrest and as such I leave the discussion open for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb that you posted is far from what you're saying. If the news reports are mostly based on the unrest during the process, then this must be included in the blurb regardless of whether the referendum is legit or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggested alt blurb, mentioning the unrest and the fact that the vote is illegal. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the word "illegal" is completely inappropriate when we already have the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan on the main page with different wording.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind wording like that which you cite but I felt it would make the blurb too unwieldy. This vote is considered illegal by the legal system which Catalonia is currently subject to, that's just a fact.  They can go and attempt to do it anyway, but that doesn't change the fact it is illegal. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's more "illegal" than the one we already have on the main page about Iraqi Kurdistan. Doubling standards will not help Wikipedia be neutral.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never said anything was more illegal than anything else. I was simply going for a simpler blurb.  I would accept a similar wording to the Kurdistan blurb(or that one could be changed). 331dot (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is sufficiently neutral. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Should the blurb be updated to reflect the "yes" vote? Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * hmmm..good question. I would support but leve it to the community to decide.Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the blurb is going to mention the result, it should also mention that the vote was non-binding and unconstitutional. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Jagmeet Singh

 * Oppose Interesting first, but not the type of thing for ITN (only a political party, so no immediate effects on any type of gov't policy). --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post the results of intraparty leadership elections. This isn't an exception. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment good candidate for DYK. The NDP hasn't been a "major party" for a generation. --2001:420:2713:1250:D6C:B250:ADE2:DA5E (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)