Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2018

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;

any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Wang Guangying

 * Support: Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sorry to have overlooked this one, looks like it's been ready to go for a day now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment make that nearly two days. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment reopening nomination after the posting of Mario Segale above. I've always followed (what I thought was) the rule and posted nominations under the actual death date. But the Mario Segale nomination shows that it's the announcement date that counts. By that standard, this nomination is not stale and as TRM has noted above, it's been ready for two days without being noticed by admins. -Zanhe (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable death. STSC (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment NOW ENTERING THE THIRD DAY WITHOUT ADMIN ATTENTION. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been a long while since I have edited the ITN template and I wouldn't normally post something I have personally supported but I've just added this one, knocking off one of my own noms - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really nice of you. -Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chen Chuangtian

 * Support: looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hamdi Qandil

 * Support - Article updated and in decent shape. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Courcelles (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Eichelbaum

 * Support it's brief, but what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 19:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie McCovey

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: article looks to meet quality threshold - Dumelow (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - referencing is sufficient for the main page now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support still some room for work, but sufficient to post. Striker force Talk 13:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Gracias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Teodoro Petkoff

 * Oppose for now. There are more unreferenced paragraphs than referenced.  Only four inline citations in the whole article - Dumelow (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dumelow. I've added the orange-level tag as the referencing is so poor. Unfortunately I'm not awake enough to go hunting for citations myself right now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose still tagged, eight hours after nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Reverted non-admin closure as asked by the editor. I didn't see the comments until now and the respective reference for the paragraphs was included, but I didn't remove the tag in case further changes are needed. Waiting for any further recommendations; as of the time of this comment, the nomination is not stale. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Statue of Unity

 * Weak support notability yes, quality nearly, but would venture that the height of the statue is more relevant in the blurb than its cost. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with TRM so I've proposed an alternative blurb that also adjusts the tense per our usual convention. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article well referenced and topic of interest. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb per TRM, Thryduulf, Capitalistroadster.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is looking reasonably good. The second blurb is my preference. AusLondonder (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The second blurb clearly. Although the cost is an important issue considering the local protests and criticism against the statue, there's no point in stating just the cost in blurb without the context. The second blurb is much better. Breakfastisready (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb Alt2 – "In the world" is a winner. Pic might be problematic as it's necessarily a vertical, but it would be very useful even at ITN. Sca (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support adding a second alt blurb to explain whom the status commemorates. --M asem (t) 13:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the second blurb. The prominence of its height overshadows both whom it commemorates and its cost; it seems people care little about that. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * also, please someone check if we should use "honor" or "honour" here. --M asem (t) 17:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be 'honour.' Indian English generally follows British spelling/conventions, –Ammarpad (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the second alt-blurb to use "honour". Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. Good article, good blurb, significant. w umbolo   ^^^  14:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not ready. Missing refs, needs tense update. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Three months long nationwide campaign collected 5,000 tonnes of iron." copyedit too. Did anyone actually read this? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence my comment. Did you actually read it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No TRM, the direct quote "Three months long nationwide campaign collected 5,000 tonnes of iron." with the questionable tense and grammar appeared to me in a vision, and I was compelled to come here and comment. I've not actually read the article at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "hence my comment. Did you actually read it?"  try again before coming off so put out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, needs slight copyedit throughout. Brandmeistertalk  17:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken a whack at copyediting it. Check it out again.  -- Jayron 32 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done some more copyediting as has Opencooper. Marking this as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm happy with either Alt1 or Alt2 for the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt2. --Tone 21:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've scheduled the image for protection, so we will soon have the option of using it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article well referenced and topic of interest. Kautuk1 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Asia Bibi blasphemy case

 * Support I saw wide coverage of this even before the ruling. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The article needs a thorough update now that there's a finalization, and it should explain why this is a landmark case (BBC's article calls it that and is even weak on why). Should also point out any current protests that happened as a result of this ruling. Given how much of a impact the case has had, this final conclusion should be the thing that ITN posts about it. (Also added altblurb to note this was at the supreme court there, so this a final decision). --M asem  (t) 05:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose would have supported on notability had the sentence been carried out, this is just another day, another acquittal. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The story and these blurbs appear to be more of sensationalism than the substance of the matter. She was not executed and it's quite what was expected. It is worth noting, despite this law in Pakistan nobody was ever executed by court for this offense; so she is not the first and definitely not the last. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability (I'll leave others to assess quality). Important story for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free speech, Christian-Muslim relations internationally, Pakistani politics, etc. The case had previously resulted in the murders of liberal Pakistani politicians Salmaan Taseer, a Muslim, and Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian (and unfortunately may yet result in more murders, judging by the angry conservative reaction, tho that's NOT part of my case, being WP:crystal). This was the Number 1 story on the BBC World News website this morning, and varied between number 1 and number 2 in their World News TV headlines (although not mentioned at all in BBC Breakfast news headlines, where the lead international story was Trump visiting Pittsburgh a day ago).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Far from being sensationalist, as claimed by some, if anything our blurb and altblurb may well be unduly downplaying the story, by, for instance, currently omitting any mention of the related murders of the Muslim Salmaan Taseer and the Christian Shahbaz Bhatti (may these brave and good people both rest in peace, and belated condolences to their loved ones). Incidentally, like Banedon above, I also saw significant coverage of this beforehand, altho that may have been a side-effect of my country's Blasphemy Referendum last week, as part of the case for repeal was that we had been criticized internationally for helping to give international respectability to laws such as the one that led to this particular death sentence and the related murders (at least as far as I could see, this particular case was the example most frequently mentioned - in other words, it seemed to be the most important current blasphemy case internationally even before today's development). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt. We do post Supreme Court cases (the same-sex marriage ban in India struck down last month), and this is a GA. w umbolo   ^^^  14:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Although an acquittal, the case is receiving a lot of press coverage and the article is of very good quality (GA). Would like to see a little more of an update regarding this decision.  Spencer T• C 15:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and post. we do post Supreme Court cases. article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support we do post Supreme Court cases and this is a high quality article. Lepricavark (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. High court case receiving international attention.  Article appears to surpass any reasonable referencing standards. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The news is getting media coverage globally and the aricle is in excellent condition. It's a landmark verdict by SC that is surprising for a lot of people. Amir (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt & marked Ready - Consensus to post seems to be clear at this point besides the article is good quality. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support alt A landmark event in the histories of both South Asia and the Islamic world. Openlydialectic (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment funny how many times I'm reading "landmark" yet that's not mentioned once in the article... Is this the first time anyone has even been acquitted of this crime? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From the article: Omar Waraich, Amnesty International's Deputy South Asia Director, described the ruling as a "landmark verdict".[54] Maybe any posting admin should put 'landmark' or 'landmark verdict' in quotes?Tlhslobus (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the article two hours after I made the comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TRM, you want the words "landmark verdict" within the article? No problem, I'll add it shortly. "Stately, since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations, even before their trial could be conducted in accordance with law" - reads the court order: Samaa TV. Its seems this is the first time anyone has lived long enough to see themselves get acquitted of blasphemy. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer my question. Lots of people are killed around the world all the time for such things.  Now then, to repeat: Is this the first time anyone has even been acquitted of this crime?   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the first time. When she was originally convicted in 2010 The Telegraph said people were usually acquitted on appeal. The scale of the local protests and/or the international fuss may be unprecedented, but I wouldn't even be sure of that (tho the scale does seem to be relatively rare, as is the distinction of those politicians murdered for trying to save her, which may even be in some ways unique, and may help explain the scale of the fuss - these high-profile murders presumably made it almost impossible for anybody in Pakistan to be unaware of the case; Openlydialectic also points out that lots of people have also been killed in related protests - in terms of national divisiveness, as well as in terms of religious conservatives vs persecuted member of religious minority, it looks rather like Pakistan's Dreyfus case, but deadlier - but I suspect Dreyfus's acquittal would be opposed at ITN too, and on much the same grounds). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, well that makes it clearer to me that this is just sensationalist headlines about something that has happened already. If the sentence had been carried out, it'd be a different story altogether, but right now this is just a continuation of the status quo with no changes happening anywhere to anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

>Except it seems that was never actually going to happen [citation needed] Openlydialectic (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I get that the story is making headlines, but it screams tabloid - CHRISTIAN woman in MUSLIM country narrowly avoids DEATH PENALTY. Except it seems that was never actually going to happen... ghost 12:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Well, we don't usually do that at ITN, but here you go:. No one has ever actually received the death penalty. If she had, that would be clearly be more notable. You can't blurb BOTH possible outcomes (that's only for sports!). ghost 13:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, a single argument in some unknown newspaper is totally a proof she was not going to get executed after a 9 year long court battle in which one minister and one government were killed, dozens (or hundreds, depending on the source) died in protests and she and her family had to be hidden by the government. Cool story, bro. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I showed mine, now you show yours: has anyone ever been put to death for this crime? Which would be more surprising: they finally carry out a sentence, or they continue with the status quo? Are you seriously suggesting you would oppose posting if they HAD executed her? Okay, let's do a altblurb: "Pakistan does same thing today as the last 18,924 days." ghost 16:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 – The real news here is the apparent depth and extent of "Islamist" outrage over something that wouldn't remotely be considered a crime in Western countries. This, in a country that is ostensibly a U.S. ally. Sca (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well as we all know, numerous individuals are executed every year by public beheading in "U.S. ally" country such as Saudi Arabia. This is a story about someone not being executed!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, but without the scare quotes (sources don't do that, so we shouldn't either) and with a link to Blasphemy law in Pakistan. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We certainly wouldn't want to offend them with "scare" quotes. (Alt2 modified accordingly.) Sca (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support - This is notable news that highlights the fate of Christians in Muslim countries. STSC (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply sensationalist. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted per clear consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I can't support the blurb as it currently stands. Yesterday's news may have been the acquittal, but today it's mostly the protests that are making headlines. I believe the latter is the real story. Perhaps we can omit the "Islamist" label if it makes people uncomfortable. I.e. Protests break out in Pakistan over the acquittal of a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support As an LGBT Christian who cares deeply about human rights, including of Christians around the globe, thank you for posting this. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting note we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and what GreatCaesarGhost above seems to have the nail squarely on the head: this blurb should be "Pakistan does same thing today as the last 18,924 days". This is neither a precedent nor a "landmark", it's just business as usual.  But this posting now sets an interesting precedent for any future legal case where someone was just acquitted in a legal system where it had happened before and is most likely to happen again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose If the case overturned the blasphemy law I'd support, but this is simply a successful appeal based on the facts of the case. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck post-posting oppose after more developments; updating the blurb can be discussed elsewhere. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A few quick responses to some of the comments made. When weighing consensus I discounted one supporting comment on the grounds that it strayed too close to WP:RGW for my comfort. I still believe that consensus clearly supports posting this. I chose the first altblurb mainly because while a consensus to post existed, there was not clarity on which blurb. The second one seemed a good compromise and IMO more closely reflected the underlying basis for the ITN nomination. If a consensus develops for a different blurb I will be happy to switch it. Likewise any uninvolved admin who believes that a consensus favoring another blurb exists should feel free to make the switch. Lastly, while I respect that this nomination has sparked some vigorous debate I would encourage editors to refrain from repeating points they have already made. If consensus turns against this nomination, I or another admin will pull it. However at present that seems unlikely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PP comment – The real story continues to be strident Islamist demonstrations against the court decision, along with demands that Bibi (not yet released) be publicly hanged. (Alt2 modified per suggestions.) Sca (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the recent coverage I have updated the blurb to include the ongoing protests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Bibi lawyer flees Pakistan in fear for his life. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kepler spacecraft dies

 * Tweaked. Stephen 23:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb, clearly we need to account for RDs for inanimate objects *end sarcasm mode* Support on principle but the article quality is a tad weak, one tagged section, some isolated para with no sources, and there's no results of the mission post 2016 (even if it was just saying "they were keeping it alive as long as possible". --M asem  (t) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we just need to argue that the claim that the spacecraft is inanimate is merely POV Western cultural imperialist systemic bias against non-Western schools of animist thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose article unsuitable for main page inclusion in any form. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I somehow missing something seriously wrong with the article, or is the above 'oppose' merely intended to be interpreted as *re-open sarcasm mode*? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, multiple maintenance tags are indicative of quality insufficient to go on the main page, so perhaps take a look first before launching an assault at me once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies, TRM, I was not intending to launch an assault on you. Your "in any form" (concerning an article that genuinely looked pretty impressive to me on first perusal despite some inevitable issues as already listed by Masem but merely summarized by them as "quality is a tad weak"), and following on Masem's preceding "end sarcasm mode", genuinely had me confused as to whether you were being serious or not. Once again, my sincere apologies if anything I said offended you. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw at least two orange tags when I looked, and in its mission findings, nothing mentioned post-2016. Plus a number of scattered no-source paragraphs. --M asem (t) 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as an item clearly in the news that is also seemingly (at least on first perusal) a fine example of Wikipedia at or near its best (showing such stuff to our readers is one of the stated purposes of ITN). Of course inevitably it ideally needs a few fixes as mentioned above by Masem, tho (unless somebody points out some truly serious flaws that I've somehow missed) I'd be quite happy to see it posted even if such fixes are not forthcoming.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. The "lead too long" tag is not a show-stopper on its own (but it is borderline), the unreferenced section tag and at least two [citation needed] tags however are. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There are so many space probes out there that the expiration of one launched nearly a decade ago underwhelms. Sca (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Don't see how this is In the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's "Death" is clearly covered in news sources (NYtimes, Time, NatGeo, etc.) --M asem  (t) 14:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I quiet clearly don't mean it was not covered at all, I mean it was not given any special attention, it was just another story. This is in quiet contrast to the second nomination above this where apart from the main unveiling story, analysts dig deeper, hence making it in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as many of these stories remarked what Kepler did do over its mission lifetime, including discovery of 2000+ exoplanets. We've done the same for major space missions where the space agency asserts the mission is complete/done/retired, like the Cassini–Huygens in 2017. I know there's lots of smaller missions out there, like that one to land on a comet, and to get to that point was effectively their mission, and I'm sure at some point the agency will say they consider that mission done but it won't get the coverage like these major launches that mankind has done. --M asem (t) 15:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: would consider supporting a blurb, but article quality is way off at the moment. Lots of missing references and is in desperate need of a trim or split (probably separate out the "mission results" section) - Dumelow (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Yutu (Philippine impact)

 * Support - essentially a "bump" of the recent Mariana posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems important enough if several people died. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Would calling this a "second landfall" be out of line? That would help explain why it's back in the news for any reader that follows that. ("Hey, why are they posting Yutu again?") --M asem (t) 00:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but would suggest making a blurb that makes reference to the previous destruction caused by the typhoon. For example, "After causing significant damage to the Mariana Islands, Typhoon Yutu makes landfall in the Philippines, killing at least six people."  If someone wants to adjust the wording of that, feel free. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Support but suggest a change to the blurb per "Typhoon Rosita (also called Typhoon Yutu)" etc. This is suggested because this time the notability is specifically due to impact in the Philippines, where the name change applies; also because many readers might be searching for information under the alternate name. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose second posting. If the first posting was still there at the ITN then bumping a combined blurb was a no-brainer but strongly oppose 2nd posting. You guys should have waited till this Typhoon actually made an impact. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and post. several deaths, important enough.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted, I added the Rosita alt name and that it was a second landfall --M asem (t) 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) Whitey Bulger

 * Comment: I added a blurb. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though this would qualify under "unusual death" (he got to prison the day before and then found dead/killed), I would oppose a blurb here - he was already elderly, and would be serving the rest of his life in prison. --M asem (t) 18:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Solely on article quality which is lacking right now. Ping me when improved and I will surely say Support.BabbaQ (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's an RD only case, clear as day, yet the article is just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, even if the article is improved in the next few minutes, the story is still in the developing phase; there are conflicting reports and a lot of speculation. It really isn't clear if Bulger was killed or not, a few news outlets are citing "unnamed sources", and the prison has confirmed that someone has died, but not who or the cause of death.  Even if we get a good article soon, it may be worthwhile to wait for official word before posting.  -- Jayron 32 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support posting, once the article is improved (not just the citations ... is "Goodfellas in South Boston" really a section hed that meets our standards? Especially when nothing in the section supports it?) but I don't think it merits a blurb. Outside of the U.S., and maybe even outside of the Boston area (too busy celebrating at the moment, I imagine), you'd have to tell people who aren't crime junkies: "you know ... the guy who Jack Nicholson's character in The Departed is based on?" Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What?! Unknown outside of Boston? (checks editor's location) Oh I see. Carry on. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait Clearly the quality isn't there, and I'm an oppose on the blurb, but let's not trip over ourselves trying to minimize the man. He was arguably the most notorious fugitive in American history this side of Bin Laden DURING which time he was portrayed by Jack Nicholson in a Scorsese movie that won four Oscars including best picture. If you don't know who he is, that's on you. I've no idea who Jin Yong is, but I'm sure that's because I'm a hayseed. ghost 21:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notorious? Ever hear of Al Capone? Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have. There was a noun after "notorious" I think you overlooked. ghost 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb on notability. When article's judged up to snuff RD is okay. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on notability, even if it turns out he has been murdered - "murder in prison of aged murderous mobster and police informer" seems to be barely above the Kim-Kardashian-bares-bum level of global significance. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and not ready for RD yet - those two sections are still tagged.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now stale for RD, and given that it's not goin to get a blurb, closing. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Taumarunui earthquake

 * Support: Seems important if it was enough to suspend the HoR. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Article fails to meet criteria at WP:NEARTHQUAKE. Not notable enough for an article, let alone the main page. Mikenorton (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEARTHQUAKE. 159.53.174.143 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not meet the minimum magnitude and Mercalli intensity scale requirements of WP:NEARTHQUAKE. No major reports of damage or deaths at the moment and there is no tsunami risk. Parliament was only slightly affected and rail service notably continued with a slight delay. Unless some intense aftershocks occur this fortunately looks like nothing serious and the article may not survive an AfD. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is not a place to discuss notability. If anyone thinks this quake is not notable then AFD should be their next step. As long as the article exists, argument of not meet ing Nx is irrelevant. The amount of coverage and article quality is what only matter. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) Jin Yong

 * Oppose blurb, and oppose on quality Article is clearly a distance from being posting due to lack of sourcing. As to the blurb, Fame != importance. I read this as being someone like Tom Clancy, writing historical fiction with an eye for accuracy, who is clearly popular, but not someone we'd have at ITN as a death blurb. --M asem (t) 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sold on a blurb yet, but I should point out that comparing Jin Yong to Tom Clancy is not appropriate. Jin Yong is the best-selling Chinese language author of all time.  That makes him the best-selling author of the second-most spoken language in the world.  The comparable English-language author would be Agatha Christie. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC))
 * I only meant this as to compare to "influential" writers (those on a shortlist to get the Nobel prize in Lit, for example) compared to "popular" ones. We want to try to avoid blurbs based solely on popularity and fame when the RD otherwise is suitable. --M asem (t) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He was not just a popular writer, although his novels are certainly popular. According to The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Jin raised martial arts literature to a height "hitherto unimaginable", and transformed the genre from entertainment to literary art (Volume 2, p. 644). The scholarly study of his works has become its own field called "Jinology" (see  etc). The English translations of his works are published by the academic Oxford University Press. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support for blurb Just to give some Chinese perspective for western Wikipedian about the influence of Jin Yong: think of him to Chinese Wuxia genere as Tolkien to High-Fantasy, or Bruce Lee to KungFu, the foremost figurehead that defines an entire genre and will continue to be many decades after their deaths. Jin Yong's readers are not just limited to Hong Kong and China but is also equally as popular in Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and North American immigrants. His influences is not limited to literature, but also has significant impact in TV and Films (there's basically a new TV/Film adaption every second year) as well as the Chinese gaming industry where a huge proportion of games draw all kind of inspirations from his works. Between the influential Chinese novelists of the last century, he is probably only behind Lu Xun and Eileen Chang in terms of influence and certainly the most influential in the second half. I cannot say for sure how notable he is to western readers, but to any Chinese reader or non-reader alike, his notability is unquestionable. 80.110.80.77 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for either article quality is not good enough for either RD or blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability, but Oppose on quality. He has been wildly popular for half a century, his works have been adapted into probably hundreds of movies and TV shows. His novels have been read by hundreds of millions and intensely studied by scholars, who have formed an entire subfield of literary criticism called "Jinology" (see  etc). Unfortunately the article quality is too poor at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per nom. Banedon (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on notability - BBC makes the comparison to Tolkien. starship.paint ~  KO   12:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – "Ninety-four-year-old novelist dies after a long illness" isn't really ITN-level news. RD only. Sca (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Earth-shattering notability.--WaltCip (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Article needs a lot more referencing. Once that is done I would support RD only.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once quality is okay. Easily the best-selling Chinese author of all time and essentially single handedly elevated the wuxia genre to the centre of Chinese literature. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. This even fails to rise to the level of the new Bowie-Mandela-Thatcher i.e. Franklin-Vajpayee-Annan. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Zanhe and others. Clear evidence of worldwide notability.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment here's the BBC obituary, which calls him the 'Tolkien of Chinese literature'. -Zanhe (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle, but oppose on quality. After thinking about this one for a few days, it occurred to me that I am an Anglosphere-biased person.  RD Blurbs are supposed to be reserved for the best of the best--as noted by 125.209.99.10, the Franklin-Mandela-Thatcher level, or to put it another way, the people who are known by virtually everyone.  I've never heard of Jin Yong, so I couldn't see a reason why he should get a blurb.  But while the Anglosphere is the dominant cultural force on the planet, it's not the only one, and Wikipedia is supposed to be internationally balanced.  Adding Vajpayee as a blurb was a step in that direction--a Mandela-level figure for a significant portion of the Earth.  Given Jin Yong's status in China, Jin Yong is probably another such figure--another Mandela-level figure, just not for the English-speaking portion of the Earth.  And while I'd argue that the Anglosphere does deserve pre-eminence over the others, it doesn't deserve a monopoly.  Therefore, I suppose this blurb in principle.  That said, it's ridiculous that there's a completely unreferenced section two days after his death.  I really should have followed Do it yourself, but I've been busy with work this week, unfortunately.  (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC))

(Closed) RD: Li Yong

 * Oppose no justification at all for uploading a fair use file of a man barely dead who was very much in the public eye. I'll take a look at the rest of the article if this is fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've nominated that image for deletion by disputing the fair use rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too many unreferenced paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Living Planet Index

 * Strongly oppose ALT1, which is flat-out untrue; the report says habitat loss has led to a of 60% of vertebrate populations, not that "humans have killed 60% of wildlife". &#8209; Iridescent 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody I know of said that except you. The Washington Post headline says: "Two generations of humans have killed off more than half the world’s wildlife populations, report finds". I struck ALT1 above, nevertheless. Thank you for the correction. The report cites four other threat categories besides habitat loss (overexploitation, e.g. ivory poaching, invasive species and disease, pollution, and climate change). -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, The Atlantic called out The Guardian, The Washington Post, Quartz, and USA Today for misleading stories about the index. Mr. Yong singled out Vox and NBC as having done a better job. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose generally, its a caution, but unlike climate change matters, difficult to determine what impacts this has outside of biodiversity (which is important, don't get me wrong, but far more difficult to quantify). I would suggest if posted, the blurb needs to say this is 60% of vertebrate species. (eg not counting insects). --M asem (t) 18:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "vertebrate" was already added above. I added a section that summarizes three critiques. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Significant finding similar to the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC that was posted. Article looks expanded. Brandmeistertalk  12:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - expanded article seems completed. Significant finding.BabbaQ (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb is useless without context, the article appears to be asserting that the rate of decline is actually decreasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * can you please clarify your objection to the article? Suggest another blurb? By the way, I added three resounding critiques from the popular press. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I object, immediately, to the poorly constructed hook. Once we have something, then I'll turn more attention to the article.  But at a glance, it appears that this isn't really news, it's actually getting less worse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only person (possibly in the whole world) who thinks the decline in population is decreasing, so I ask you to please contribute constructively. Driving by waving hands doesn't help, and possibly will cause this to go stale. Can you please rewrite the blurb? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn’t read what I wrote. But I’m only one editor anyway. Take some time to read my thoughts before you next respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I am terribly sorry for misunderstanding. How embarrassing.
 * You posted vague negatives that I would try to fix if you would clarify. The blurb seemingly you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The clock is running out. I say this after trying for three or four days to come up with a balanced article. I don't see that you have edited either the article or the blurb even once. Maybe I'll wake tomorrow and be surprised. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's "vague" about saying the hook is useless without context and that the article seems to imply that the issue is getting less worse. Maybe you'll wake up tomorrow and re-read it and understand it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Again my apologies for misquoting you, The Rambling Man. No I do not understand your point. In the absence of input from anybody, I am going to close this out and give money I don't have to WCN. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Lion Air Flight 610 crash

 * Wait only to make sure about the fate of the passengers. It doesn't sound like there will be any survivors, but... --M asem (t) 03:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing conflicting numbers about whether it's 188 or 189 people on board. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so much the exact number, but simply if there's even a slim chance they survived. It doesn't seem likely, and we'll likely know in a few hours. --M asem (t) 04:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support significant level of coverage, notable as being the first instance of a crash of a Boeing 737 MAX.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Any major aircraft accident is always notable. It has been covered by major worldwide online news sites. Chongkian (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Mass casualty event with almost 200 involved. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Any plane crash of this scale will pretty much always be ITN worthy. AusLondonder (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, significant event and article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt1 – Context of number of people is important but can't say they're dead without official confirmation so this is the most appropriate blurb. Alt2 is more trivia and suited for DYK. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Three sources added. Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 World Series

 * Support: Article looks good enough; has been updated as Series progressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good quality article, no visible issues, ITN/R criteria are met. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: Article looks good, has sources cited, is up to date, part of ITN/R. TheMrP (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this now. Just a moment... Jehochman Talk 03:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support Article looks decent. Congrats to the Sox. Not really a big Boston fan, but any team loathed as much as they are by Yankee fans works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a Yankee fan btw. Our 27 World Championships are still more than however many (or few) Boston has. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Commiserations. As a Mets fan all I can offer is our motto. Wait til next year. As for all your titles that's one of the reasons I can't pull for the Yankees. It's like cheering for Donald Trump to win the lottery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's like cheering for Donald Trump to win the lottery. Now that the Red Sox have won the World Series four times in fifteen years while having one of the highest payrolls, if not the highest payroll, in MLB, shouldn't that be said about them? —184.207.73.253 (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When they get to 27 drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh you're a Mets fan. Now I get it. Let me know if Timo Pérez learned how to run the bases. (I'll let your Donald Trump comparison slide because I know how inferior you Mets fans can get sharing a city with a real baseball franchise. Hiring deGrom's agent as GM? ) – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was rooting for the Dodgers. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So was I. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor hitch: we don't have a picture of the MVP in a Red Sox uniform.   Does anybody happen to have a better picture? Jehochman Talk 03:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Found File:Steven Pearce 2018-08-28.jpeg (uploaded from Flickr) --M asem (t) 04:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Now in use. Jehochman Talk 05:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha

 * Support. Article is being updated as I type and is in overall good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb so as to include 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash, which is in decent shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Because the helicopter crash is also massive news both in the UK and Thailand. Article should include updated info, like the Thai football team trapped in the cave were in the UK over the weekend to attend a Manchester United game on Sunday, and travelled to Leicester to pay tribute to Seivaddhanaprabha, an iconic Thai businessman. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD, undecided on blurb (and there's no proposed blurb yet). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above include link to 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash TheMasterGuru (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD for the time being, for which there is a clear consensus. The blurb discussion can continue. --Tone 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggested blurb A helicopter crashes in Leicester, UK, killing all five people on board, including Thai businessman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for the reason stated in the previous nomination below. -- KTC (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per KTC. RD is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb very tragic, but does not rise to the level of a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb for same reasons as before. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb oppose per above, especially in light of the more recent, deadlier crash of Lion Air Flight 610.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - that there has been another aircrash is irrelevant. Article is up to scratch, it's in the news, and worth posting. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is in good shape, this is active in global news, and death is sudden. I support blurb along with restoring the RD tag that was removed when Srivaddhanaprabha's tag was added. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb No problems at all with the RD post but light aircraft crashes are relatively common and disproportionately affect the rich and famous. 3142 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The AW169 is not a "light aircraft", it is a fairly heavy helicopter. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Light aircraft has a rigid definition for various regulatory and licensing purposes, and yes, the vehicle involved fits the classification. 3142 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - locally devastating but globally insignificant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "locally" to where? Leicester where it happened, to all of the UK where football is beloved, to Thailand where Srivaddhanaprabha was well regarded, to China where he began his business empire? Sure, let’s call it "local". Kingsif (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's devastating to Leicester, and upsetting elsewhere. But, as has been said, helicopter crashes are relatively common globally.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With notable individuals onboard? Name the last one which wasn't posted as a blurb to ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Question Does it become more significant with the other passengers revealed? One of the most influential Polish women and a former Miss Universe Thailand? I don’t think it does, but they could be in the blurb? Kingsif (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for their independent notability?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Given the prominence of the Premier League globally and the coverage of 15-16 run, Srivaddhanaprabha is a globally prominent person. Some element of his biography is known to tens of millions of people. This is the most textbook blurbable death I've seen in years. ghost 11:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb RD is sufficient. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD. Does not rise to blurb prominence IMO. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb only based on past process. We posted the dead of three athletes in the same crash as a blurb (even though there were others among the dead), even though the helicopter there was also a private one. Seems no different here if both the bio and the crash article are up to speed. --M asem  (t) 13:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support blurb this has been all over the UK press since it happened, but I imagine a lot of that has been down to a reluctance to state that everyone onboard died and who they were. It's still headlining here, with a near-Princess Diana-style mourning effort going on outside the King Power stadium.  It's more notable because it's the first hull loss of its type, and deadly helicopter crashes within the mainland are extremely rare.  The international notability is beyond question, but is it receiving coverage outside the UK?  According to ITN rules, that's not relevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Minor crash receiving disproportionate coverage.  An order of magnitude less significant than either of the same-day (Oct 27) blurbs it would have to replace.  This is what RD is for.  If this fails to gain consensus again, is it going to be nominated a third time on yet a later date? —Cryptic 08:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Brazilian general election, 2018

 * There's also discussion about whether should be a spin-off article or not. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * How can A defeats B and at the same time B defeats A? Is there mixup in these two blurbs? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The results aren't in yet. I'll remove the incorrect one after results are in.  I've deliberately posted this early because the article on the election is too far away from being ready. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment At 22:06GMT, Bolsonaro reached 54%, winning the vote. Confirmed by the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's over. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment He was officially elected. Almost 100% of the votes counted--SirEdimon (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and possibly an image. 99.9% of votes counted and he is the confirmed winner. Both articles on election and the President-elect sourced and free of tags. Major event in one of the world's 5 largest countries. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. ArionEstar (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support With the alternative blurb. - Alumnum (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb and image. Defeating a rival candidate is of secondary importance to being elected. The bolded article has a few unsourced statements but they seem to be uncontroversial statements of fact, maybe a weak support for now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Slight preference for longer version with Haddad (it was a two-man run-off election) but, whichever is chosen, Bolsonaro (and Bolsonaro alone) should be bolded. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb, primarily on article quality. The election article has some gaps in referencing. The biographical article is, if not perfect, good enough and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Major election in a fairly important country. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news in world's fourth-largest democracy, especially given the global rise of fascism and far-right politics. AusLondonder (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dunno if this support !vote is neutral, but it is significant regardless. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hold on There are still significant gaps in the election article. There's a lot of notability supports above, which are unnecessary for ITNRs. ghost 11:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: as I understand it, Bolsanaro won't take office until some time next year. Could we finesse the blurb as 'the next President' or similar? Modest Genius talk 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support w/ alt blurb and image - the holes in the article could easily be fixed before it goes live on ITN. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Now we can have an article about the assassination attempt. w umbolo   ^^^  15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the second blurb (with picture) as defeated opponent Fernando Haddad may not be noticeable enough. --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fixed all referencing gaps I could find in general election article. Alt blurb is ready to go on ITN with image. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. I left the image of Pearce for now as it hasn't even been up a day, but if that's not okay, I can change it(or I invite someone else to). 331dot (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove: Killing of Jamal Khashoggi

 * Support There's still a slow boil on international politics but it's not a storm in a teapot-level of concern. Any breaking change would likely be best served as a blurb. --M asem (t) 16:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support agreed. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Yea, this has settled down. We can always re-nominate any subsequent diplomatic developments. Teemu08 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – "Slow boil" is apt – but something is likely to put this back on the front burner at some point, I would guess. Sca (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, all information has come to light. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose- In just the past few days Turkey has shared audio of the incident, the Saudi AG admitted the death was the result of premeditated murder, Turkey requested extradition of the suspects, and MbS announced an investigation and that he will punish those found to be responsible. If anything this story is heating up, not cooling down.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-removal support. That is a good example of the "slow boil" described above - requests, announcements, commencement of investigations, etc, but no decisive action, nothing that would stand a chance if nominated as a blurb. As Masem notes, if/when something significant happens in the story then it will be best served by a new blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Update – Multiple stories quoting Turkish Chief Prosecutor Irfan Fidan saying in a statement that Khashoggi was strangled as soon as he entered the Saudi consulate and his body was dismembered before it was removed: AP, BBC, Reuters, Guardian. — Sca (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is only a claim (just as the Saudis' statement was). It's presently a battle of words, and not sufficiently fast moving anymore for ITN. --M asem (t) 20:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just letting folks know it's back in the news, temporarily at least. Sca (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * More bits – The order to kill Khashoggi came from the highest level of the Saudi government, Erdoğan reiterates in a Washington Post piece (AP, dpa). Adviser says body was dissolved in acid. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sri Lankan political crisis

 * Oppose no primary article to link to currently. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * me thinks you should reconsider your vote coz it looks like we do have an article. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems no real justification for 2 noms. One of them should probably be closed. Probably this one should be snow-closed and the nominator can always post their blurb as an altblurb at the other nom if they wish. But as this is not 100% clear to me, I'd prefer to leave the decision to an admin. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC) The other story is now closed as superseded by this one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added alt blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is a major event, marking big political changes in the country. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's such a major event that it's not even noted on the BBC news homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Above the fold in the BBC News homepage in my neck of the woods, and is the eighth most read story (4 of 10 are about the Indonesian airline that crashed.) Neither presidential elections are most read. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as this is still making news. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Madan Lal Khurana

 * Oppose too many [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Leicester City F.C. helicopter crash

 * Wait, do helicopters die? Can helicopter crashes die? Openlydialectic (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't qualify as RD, changed to standard nomination. Added a basic blurb, but also oppose on being a minor aviation incident. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha can be an RD nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC) If he didn't survive. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WAIT - For context, the helicopter was an AgustaWestland AW139, a medium sized helicopter capable of seating 7 passengers. Owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha is confirmed to have been on board. There are no reports confirming that he has survived, but no confirmation of fatalities at the moment. If it turns out he was killed, then a blurb mentioning him and the accident (both bolded) would be in order. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable but terrible accident, sorry for the Leicester FC fans. STSC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The blurb as presently worded is almost certainly inaccurate, as reports are that there were at least four people on board the helicopter at the time of the crash. At the very least, someone had to be piloting that helicopter aside from the owner.  That said, this might be a good time for editors to start prepping the article for Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, as he is likely to have an RD nom in a few hours. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Per my earlier comments, we are waiting on official confirmation of the number of casualties (if any). Already covered in article that at least two people are involved. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor crash getting a disproportionate amount of coverage. While an article on the crash can probably withstand an AFD because of the likely demise of the notable Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, it's not newsworthy enough to go beyond RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a single private helicopter crash that doesn't appear to have directly involved large number of people or major structure on the ground. -- KTC (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose private helicopter crash, albeit one famous person was on board. Also article is very short, and not really enough details. The blurb- "At least one person died"- doesn't appear to be confirmed, and in fact isn't in the article anywhere. If Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha is confirmed dead, then a RD for him would be acceptable (but probably nominate that separately). <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be better as an RD on the notable passenger if it is indeed confirmed he died in the crash. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sorry, but this is a comparatively minor event. Sca (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ntozake Shange

 * Oppose. While text of article is referenced, the awards and works sections are unreferenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Early life needs more referencing, and latter sections (as noted above) are woefully cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Pittsburgh synagogue shooting

 * Comment the article quality isn't there yet, and the situation isn't clear enough yet to assess impact. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Article name updated after move; there's every possibility this will be moved more times in the next day without move full-protection. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's complete enough now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait We don't know enough right now. If this turns out to be terrorism related I may support. However, if this turns out to be just another random mass shooting my support will become less likely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If the shooter yelled "All Jews must die", as is reported, yeah I think that counts as terrorism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on merit, pending further expansion  Hate crime, should be enough of a body count for you WP:MINIMUMDEATHS folk. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Added an ALT1 blurb that follows other ITN stories in having the death toll first.  Sounder Bruce  17:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the biggest terrorist attacks motivated by anti-semitism in a long time. This shooting will probably have massive implications. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Moving from "wait." This is now being treated as a hate crime which means it is most likely some form of domestic terrorism. That's enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not the run-of-the-mill US mass shooting, but an instance of racial/religious hate crime. Had the perpetrator been a Muslim it would have been called terrorism many times by now (although undoubtedly prematurely in at least some cases), but I can't immediately see this in reliable sources currently. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I prefer the original blurb as the alt is incorrect - while eight people have been confirmed dead, many more were shot. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's been confirmed that the minimum deaths for terrorist incidents inside the United States is zero, consensus dictates that I support this. WaltCip (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? There is no minimum deaths criterion for anything, whether that is terrorism inside the USA or something else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He's apparently referring to the pipe bomb guy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb (alt0 is fine) Support original blurb (per Thryduulf) actual terrorist attack by gun at a gun-free zone with a pretty bad death toll – at least eight dead. Article is neutral and sourced. It's not up to us to judge whether it's random and whether it's terrorism. We won't know if it's 100% wiki-voice terrorism until someone is convicted... w umbolo   ^^^  18:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and if there are issues with the article, by the time this discussion is sufficiently concluded, the article will be fine.  Volunteer Marek   18:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. How about someone write an article about the synagogue? Here's a couple sources: . It can be linked from a blurb, e.g. "A mass shooting kills eight people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States."  w umbolo   ^^^  19:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really necessary: in the spirit of BLP1E, a local church should not be notable for a single event, and that alone wont' make it pass WP:NORG. --M asem (t) 19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some coverage from before the shooting. Combined with the shooting, it should be enough. w umbolo   ^^^  19:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 19:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BREAKING. TEN people were killed w umbolo   ^^^  19:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AP says 10, BBC and Guardian say 11. (Added as sources above.) – Sca (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted with 11 as that is what the article currently says, sourced to CBS. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wumbolo 's source at Twitter is actually AP. Sca (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. It's fairly obvious that this is going to be posted, so I don't see any reason to delay that given that the article is now in good shape. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Article well-updated, receiving a lot of press coverage globally.  Spencer T• C 02:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * please wikilink Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha, article created by . w umbolo   ^^^  09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Irish Presidential Election

 * No need for two different processes be combined. Presidential election should be nominated separately likewise referendum. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've separated them. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I've added 2 altblurbs (altblurb1 with one main article, and altblurb2 with 2), just in case there are editors who think it makes more sense to post them as a single story (as I originally did, and as I may well come to think again later, tho at the moment I'm happy enough to have them separate, at least until I see how that works out).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've also added a shorter altblurb3 (there are other possible versions of this).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, since they've been separated they cannot be considered. We can't have 3 nominations about 2 events at the same time. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * I'm sorry, but since when did a lone editor get the right to unilaterally delete reasonable altblurbs, thereby unilaterally suppressing discussion of what is the best blurb for this item, purely on the excuse that somebody else has unwisely created an entirely irregular and hopeless nom somewhere else at their suggestion? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Therefore I have now restored these altblurbs, so that editors and/or posting admins, if they wish to do so, can discuss and decide what is the best blurb to use when posting the ITNR Presidential story, rather than have this unilaterally imposed on them by a single editor without discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (Now reduced from 3 and then 4 very similar altblurbs, all created by me, to just 1, for reasons explained below).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nomination should be dated when the result is known.  If there is no reason to doubt the exit polling, maybe it could have been dated yesterday, but today is fine too I think. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt-blurb 3 is a bit misleading - it makes it sound like the Irish constitution contained blasphemy. Smurrayinchester 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree (and I much prefer the other options), but as common sense suggests that is probably not what it means, it might be acceptable to posting admins if needed to save space, which is why I've put it there. But if enough editors object, or any object strongly enough, then I myself have no objection to them adding back "the offence of ", leaving the removal of "Michael D. " as the only shortening.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When restoring the deleted altblurbs (for reasons explained above), I put "the offence of " back in.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added altblurb4 to give the full range of options.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Smurrayinchester clearly indicated their support for including both articles in a single blurb yesterday (in effect a Support any of the current altblurbs subject to quality), but they placed their support in the now closed thoroughly irregular nom, so I've taken the liberty to copy it to here (on the other hand it seems impossible to know whether most opposes there were just opposes to a stand-alone referendum item, tho mine clearly was; the nom was closed on the basis that there was no support for a stand-alone item, among other problems):
 * While they should be nominated separately, they should probably have the same blurb (just as for a US election we would post "X is elected president and party Y wins control of the House"). Anyway, support when confirmed Smurrayinchester 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support any of the altblurbs as it's more informative to tell our readers there were 2 votes. I have a slight preference for altblurb2, then altblurb4, then altblurb1, then altblurb3 (followed by the presidency-only blurb if necessary as a last resort).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC) (Support switched below to blurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of article quality, both Presidential election and Referendum articles now seem Ready to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally I'm not sure whether this matters now or not, but both articles were originally part of this nom (and were both named in its original title) until the nom was split by another editor totally irregularly - and unwisely, since there was never any real justification for the second irregular, hopeless, and now closed nom).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To try to avoid further delay I'm Marking this as Ready. Please feel free to remove it if you feel this is premature.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you have removed the Ready flag two hours ago, please indicate why you think it's not ready and what more, if anything, you think needs to be done.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this is an example of how not to nominate an article on ITN. Editors, for the most part, aren't particularly interested in ITNR election articles - let alone the relection of figurehead ones. Obfuscate that with an indirectly related event, add several virtually identical altblurbs and a one-person monologue is a good way to put more off. The low turnout gives a rough indication of the significance of the referendum (insulting religion), compared to the previous three (abortion, lowering presidential candidate age and gay marriage). Quality-wise for the election, there is no prose about the electoral campaign or debates. The article jumps from candidates to results, with a few tables in between. Fuebaey (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose election article on quality grounds per Fuebaey - there needs to be more prose throughout, and some of what is there doesn't belong (e.g. the procedure section belongs in an article about Irish presidential elections generally). Oppose the referendum as not very significant - Ireland holds more referendums than just about anywhere else so, unlike in the UK for example, simply having one isn't newsworthy. The turnout was low and the result was not surprising. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose all mention of the blasphemy referendum - Not only has there not been a conviction under the 2009 act, there's not been any conviction for blasphemy on the landmass called Ireland since 1703. So in the Republic of Ireland, a state that is often described as having a historical domination by the Catholic Church, there's never been one person convicted of blasphemy. The vote on abortion was a change to an active situation in which Irish women had to travel to England to terminate, and changed a law that is widely attributed to causing a woman's avoidable death. In comparison, the blasphemy referendum is much less important and if it wasn't in a Western Anglophone country we wouldn't even know about it. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for the helpful feedback, everybody, and apologies for taking up your time. I'm switching to support blurb below as a result. Re article quality, I don't expect to be doing anything about it myself, but I'm going to copy Fuebaey and Thryduulf's objections to the article Talk page, in case anybody there wants to try to fix it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb (switched from support altblurbs due above feedback). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing altblurbs 2 to 4 to leave space for new altblurbs just in case anybody needs it; (leaving altblurb1 so people can still more or less see what the fuss was about, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are changing your recommendation, please strike through all your other previous recommendations for clarity. Also, you do not own this nomination - either anybody can unilaterally remove altblurbs or nobody (including you) can. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've struck my previous support. I don't claim to own the nomination (tho, incidentally, if people don't own their noms, they presumably should not be allowed withdraw them, even tho they quite frequently do, and are allowed to do so). But I merely removed 3 of the 4 altblurbs, all created by me, and all basically slightly different ways of saying the same thing, at a time when nobody except me had expressed any support for any specific one of the 4 altblurbs, and when Fuebaey had made the perfectly reasonable point that there were far too many of them. I also left one of them "so people can still more or less see what the fuss was about, etc" (with that ", etc" being shorthand for ", and other reasons, such as that one other person has expressed support for having both stories, and others might wish to do so", as has now happened with ArionEstar below). That's quite different from unilaterally preventing discussion by removing all of them, and is more like slightly adjusting an altblurb that one has created. And it leaves room for others to put in their own adjustments, or entirely new altblurbs, if they wish to do so. However if you want to restore any of the 3 that I have deleted, please feel free to do so.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alternative blurb Both events are significant. ArionEstar (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose election blurb on quality, per Fuebaey. A brief summary of the debates or other events is needed. Oppose blasphemy referendum on notability, per anarcho-authoritarian. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose any mention of referendum which is routine, lacks significance and not in the news. Also oppose the election on article quality. It needs prose, not array of tables of debates, opinion polling results and even whole election results, like a government website. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, Ammarpad. (In case you're wondering why I'm thanking you, it's because I had asked you above for your reasons). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Close as stale? No work has been done on the article since 14.55 yesterday (that is, since before there was feedback here, since copied by me to the article Talk page, on what still needed to be done). I don't know whether it's technically stale as there's seemingly still quite a lot about it in The Irish Times (perhaps because its print version doesn't appear on Sundays). But even supposing it's not technically stale, I'd be very surprised to see its quality brought up to scratch. I'd consider withdrawing the nom to stop wasting editors' time, except that it has already been pointed out above that I don't own the nom, so I'd prefer to leave any closure decision to some uninvolved admin.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is nowhere near stale. Many news outlets may not publish this until today. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Martin.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Ok, so the article could be improved with more prose. But many readers will just want to see the basic facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Martin.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Irish Blasphemy Referendum

 * I've separated the two nominations, as they are different processes. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While they should be nominated separately, they should probably have the same blurb (just as for a US election we would post "X is elected president and party Y wins control of the House"). Anyway, support when confirmed Smurrayinchester 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Party and president are inherently related, that's not the case with a 'referendum'. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This seems like a relatively routine removal of an outdated law, largely notable only because such a thing requires a referendum in the first place. Per the blasphemy law in the Republic of Ireland article, "As of 9 May 2017, no prosecution has ever been brought under the 2009 act." Perhaps am I underestimating the effect this law has on Irish free speech, but at a glance it doesn't seem like this will have a major effect. Teemu08 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing this being reported in depth by mainstream sources. Routine amendment. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an entirely irregular nom, somehow credited to me, but actually created by 331dot in response to a comment by Ammarpad at the Irish Presidential Election nom of which it was originally a part. Once it got created by 331dot, I went along with it (perhaps unwisely) in order to be cooperative, and, as I said at the time, to see what would happen (and as far as I can see what is happening looks like wasting a lot of editors' time on something which seems very unlikely to succeed). Personally I do not think there is any justification for treating this as a separate nom from the Irish Presidential election, since I do not think there is any way of justifying posting it on its own, nor any likelihood of getting consensus for posting it on its own. If it were up to me I'd withdraw it, but I feel I probably can't withdraw a nom that I did not create. However it might be a good idea if some uninvolved admin Snow closes it on grounds of being an invalid nom that also seemingly has no hope of success. I can't do this myself, as I'm not an admin, and I'm involved, and this is not something so clear-cut that an involved non-admin should do it. Once closed (and perhaps even before that) I would expect or hope that either me or somebody else would add back my altblurbs referring to this item at the Irish Presidential Election nom, altblurbs that Ammarpad has unilaterally deleted. The point is that this nom makes no sense on its own, but it may well make sense to mention its subject as part of the blurb when posting the Irish Presidential Election per ITNR, and the question of what should appear in that blurb is a question for editors there to decide, and suggested altblurbs are not something that should be unilaterally removed by lone editors, thereby unilaterally suppressing discussion about the appropriate blurb there.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have now restored the above-mentioned deleted altblurbs to the Irish presidential Election nom, and briefly mentioned the reason there. But I still think it advisable (perhaps even more so) to snow close the current entirely irregular and hopeless nom.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my above comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Request Snow Close of an entirely irregular and hopeless nom (which was NOT created by me), per my above comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed as superseded) Mahinda Rajapaksa

 * Support very well written article, no problems visible. I have fixed a few incorrectly formatted references. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support WP:ITNR, article is good enough <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Striking per 331dot's comment that this isn't ITNR.
 * Oppose he was President between 2005 and 2015 and PM 2004-2005. I do not think it is an important investiture by someone who has already held the position previously. Alsoriano97 (Alsoriano97) 22:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because he's done the job before, doesn't make it less notable. We post many election results where the incumbent leaders or parties stay in power, and this is him taking the role again (which is more interesting than just keeping it). <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose quality. Needs a copyedit for stuff like " Basil was arrested in April 2015 for many corruptions." and missing refs. If we're going to blindly ITN/R post the appointment of a meaningless figurehead, the article can at least be in good shape. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have time tonight, but with sections like "Allegations of war crimes" and "Election fraud" the article needs to be scrutinized for WP:BLP issues and WP:NPOV. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR; the Sri Lankan PM is appointed by the President, who is head of state and head of government. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose superseded by the Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nomination above. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Gelbard

 * Support short article but sourced and well written. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nikolai Karachentsov

 * Comment: There are two unreferenced sentences and an unreferenced paragraph in the "theatre career" section. There are two unreferenced paragraphs in the "film career" section.  There is an unreferenced sentence in the "Injury, illness and death" section.  Around half of the acting credits aren't referenced - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: all but 3 of the references are in Russian (and the 3 in English are primarily about his death) making it hard to very the article's contents. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you crazy? Since when does the language of references influence the decision to post an ITN note? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any unreferenced statements. Willing to mark those you allegedly saw with citation needed tags? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The article is well-written. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Several paragraphs end without a reference. Stephen 22:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Tyrone Gayle

 * Weak oppose Just one citation tag; once that is fixed it should be ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Yutu

 * Support should but informative, no clear problems. I agree that the severity of the typhoon makes a compelling case for ITN. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose purely based on article quality; we need more of a lead than Typhoon Yutu (commonly referred to as Super Typhoon Yutu) was the most powerful storm on record to impact the Mariana Islands. Enough impact to support once the article is improved, though I expect we can come up with a better blurb.  This will need an update if it's still on the main page when it hits the Philippines, China, or Vietnam. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not perfect, but probably good enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support a significant event though, per enwiki, the article quality leaves a bit to be desired. Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Issues from the oppose has mostly been solved. Nova Crystallis   (Talk)  17:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 04:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations -- (1) has since been renamed Typhoon Rosita, having entered a different zone of responsibility (will this lead to confusion by potential readers?), (2) blurb may need to be updated after (predicted per sources) impact with Luzon, Philippines on the morning of Oct 30 local time at similar strength (but not citing any possible future impact at this time per CRYSTALBALL). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. If the impact on the Philippines is as significant as predicted, open a new nomination then making it clear the proposal is to bump and update this blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cheam Channy

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written & sufficiently sourced. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support well written, no visible problems. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Meets minimum standards and has consensus, but if anyone finds more information about his early life and career before the arrest, please add it in.  Spencer T• C 23:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Oldest stone tools in North America

 * Oppose, secondary sources are quite critical of every aspect of this story. The spearpoints are not the oldest, they are more primitive than expected. The tools are in a poor state, broken and probably don't explain the things the authors want them to explain. The dating is suspect, as is the soil stratification. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive Good faith, and it's certainly interesting, but this find is not confirmed to be as exciting as the nomination would suggest. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sakharov Prize

 * Oppose as nominated for the same reason as last year's nom. Will support if Oleg Sentsov is the bolded article. Banedon (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Sentsov's article has some issues, such as poor wording. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I agree with sentiments of Banedon and AusLondoner, but the winner is now bolded and the quality is good enough for me. ghost 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OH YEAH, article should mention he won. Whoops. ghost 12:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bolded article does not have a sufficient update with the recent events. It doesn't even mention anywhere that he won the prize.  I would expect a minimum of a paragraph in the body of the article describing him winning the prize, the reasons for it, and the implications of it, and a sentence in the lead to summarize.  The last events mentioned in the article are over 1 month old.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No-one said it was updated. You could probably have done it in the time it took you to lay out what your requirements were. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for this to be posted on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is? I'm simply providing a service that notifies interested parties that this ITNR item has rolled round again.  And there I was thinking it was all about the quality for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're done with this conversation. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Several issues with the article including its very title. This is not a biography, but a story of trial and jailing. –Ammarpad (talk)
 * There are quality issues on the article, but it does seem like the reason he has been given this award becuase of his arrest and protests from within captivity; I would expect a significant section to be about that on this article. --M asem (t) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that shows he's only known for that. Once you split that to say Arrest and trial of Oleg Sentsov, then Oleg Sentsov cannot stand on its own. Nothing to write. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This quite plainly is not a BLP1E seeing as how his film Gamer, which was shown at several international film festivals, was released in 2011, three years before his arrest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jayron32. Lepricavark (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated per Jayron32. Consider this a support if the article is updated with recent info, particularly more information regarding his winning of the prize. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 03:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose but only because the BLP appears to be a story of a trial masquerading as a bio. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Sahle-Work Zewde

 * Question isn't this ITNR? Banedon (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is ITNR as an election/appointment of a head of state. Article is satisfactory, but could do with expansion and more refs. AusLondonder (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is in no fit state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You could probably have done it in the time it took you to lay out what your requirements were. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go Jayron, since you seem confused by what the basic ITN requirements are, the big orange tag pretty much covers it for me: This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.  Let me know if you need anything more on this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it was all about the quality for you! -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you seemed confused about my "requirements" which (to me) seemed obvious enough in that the big orange maintenance tag, by default, prevented this from being promoted to the main page. If that's not clear enough for you, let me know.  I can give specifics, upon request. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is extremely sparse, and has no where near enough information to be posted on the main page. I would expect someone who is the head of state of a country to have a fairly well documented life in reliable sources out there somewhere.  Find those sources and use them to expand the article to include a relatively complete biography.  A few 1- and 2- sentence paragraphs is in no way a comprehensive representation of available text out there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment in case you're wondering "The President of Ethiopia, officially the President of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia is the head of state of Ethiopia. The position is largely a ceremonial one, with executive power effectively being exercised by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia." so this technically is ITN/R -- which is objectively broken for this criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article needs non trivial editing to even be assessed. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is quite poor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first female president for Ethiopia and actually the only female head of State in whole Africa. --Holapaco77 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As it's ITNR you don't need to support on notability - it has to be posted provided article quality is brought up to scratch.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Now fully referenced and ready to go in my opinion. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Quality now seems OK to me too. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready. With 2 editors assessing this ITNR item as good to go, an assessing admin can presumably either post it or remove the Ready flag if they think it's not in fact Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article has the bare minimum of content, but what's there is adequately written and sufficiently referenced. I've added a more concise altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a photo. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. The picture can be added when it gets protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

(Posted) Hurricane Willa and Tropical Storm Vicente

 * Support but suggest reversing the two (chronological order). Dunno how much more about the Vicente impact could be said there. --M asem (t) 17:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Swapped them around; I'm working on expanding Vicente's article now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant natural disasters & the articles look good Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both articles are informative, and thought shorter than I'd like I see no problems with either of them. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Large death toll and the articles are in decent shape, though maybe some of the paragraphs could be split for the sake of readability? 01:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this looks like it's been ready to post for around 30 hours...... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Karen

 * Support - I don't love the current formatting of the filmography section, but there are no apparent sourcing issues, and the article is ergo good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No visible problems with the article (although I agree with Stormy clouds about the formatting of the filmography section, I don't think this should prevent a posting). --DannyS712 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been ready to post now for about 9 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Carmen Alborch

 * Oppose: article too short and has two uncited paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait article is short (stub) and uncited, but has potential, especially as a result of her recent death. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Request close clear consensus (IMO, as an involved editor) against this nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's not improved in time, it'll be closed as stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose more than a stub but poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose This article is very short and does not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Suspicious packages intercepted

 * Oppose at this point. First, we'd need a separate article, but even if one existed, these having been found and extracted before they could do any damage makes it sort of a non-event at this point. --M asem (t) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-Opposing on the re-opening of this. Again, nothing happened, the packages were intercepted. If there was a plot, wait for the FBI and authorities to figure it out and arrest and convict that person(s), at which point that might be ITN. --M asem (t) 05:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To add further, the article now is reflected the spot-market sensationalism of the media here; the media is blaming Trump, Trump is blaming the media, and our article has far too much detail on that back-and-forth. That's exactly the type of stuff RECENTISM tells us to avoid. So the article quality is not there either. --M asem (t) 01:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no article, no sources (links) given. If the sender is found, and an article is created, I'd likely support that proposal, but in this current form I can't. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose I have no article to assess the quality of. You can't post nothing on the main page!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC) striking and revoting below per article being written.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No article, and even if there was one, the news is still unfolding with the Secret Service saying there was nothing sent to the White House. Nihlus  15:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if they'd exploded and killed Obama and/or the Clintons, I'd consider changing my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And having considered, you might then conclude that just made 3 deaths so posting would just be yet more pro-American bias (unless ex-Presidents are ITNR, in which case post Obama and Bill but not Hillary) Tlhslobus (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think that the assassination of two ex-Presidents and one failed-wannabe-President would probably be sufficiently notable for a blurb. Some potentially hazardous hate mail is definitely not and is being overplayed by the US media and Trump in extremis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL again, TRM - and thanks, I may just love your above use of the word 'probably' even more than your previous use of the word 'consider'. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Draft:2018 interceptions of suspicious packages has been created. 98.118.32.140 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest snow close; even if the (unsourced, 1-paragraph) draft article gets to mainspace (and isn't immediately AfD'd) this still won't get consensus to be posted at this time. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's still no there there; "undelivered packages don't explode" is roughly akin to "dog doesn't bite man" as far as a lack of newsworthiness. If something more develops we can reconsider, but I don't see any reason to post this now. The bad image layout on that article is, separately, reason enough to oppose in my view. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a stub at 2018 explosive device incidents. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – 'Bombs fail to go off' is not an ITN story. I suppose big-time political notables such as ex-presidents get all kinds of crap mailed to them. Sca (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-close oppose - Did anyone die? No? Then there's no there there.--WaltCip (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your WP:MINIMUMDEATHS marker for a story like this then? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-close comment - The article at October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, which documents this story, is no longer a stub. Since there is now an article (not a draft or a stub), would this warrant re-opening the discussion? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be reopened and I support posting. It's a decent quality article at one day old and it's domestic terrorism in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I closed this, there was no article at all, it was stated almost an hour later. Now reopened, though I (personally) think it's unlikely to pass. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. I wasn't suggesting that you closed it improperly. I just thought that, as the original closer, the question of reopening should be directed to you. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have updated the nomination with an altblurb and sources. I support this nomination, but would also support a nomination to ongoing about the ongoing FBI investigation. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose No bombs went off. No one has been hurt. I may be open to reconsidering this once more information becomes available and as the situation develops. But right now, I don't think this rises to ITN level. I recall some recent instance where ricin was sent to prominent Republicans. The letters were all intercepted and it was handled with minimal fuss. I don't recall any ITN nominations, which I would have opposed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article's stil pretty low grade, "man doesn't open parcel" is not ITN-worthy, and, frankly "it's domestic terrorism in the United States" has to be one of the most bizarre rationales ever—as if such a phenomonen was rare as unicorn dung. —— SerialNumber  54129  06:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There is a huge difference between 'believed to be containing' and 'containing', so there's practically no proof that someone's life was threatened. But even the containment of explosives was proved, no strong reason appeals to support this with no casualties at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This kind of thing really isn't unusual; high-profile public figures get all kinds of crap sent to them all the time, and normally it wouldn't even be reported. The only thing out of the ordinary here is that in this case one of the packages forced the evacuation of a TV studio during a live broadcast, and as a consequence more people were aware of it than usual. &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb obviously, this sort of thing certainly does not happen "all the time" on the scale of this incident, in western democracies. The article is in decent shape, item is in the news, law enforcement is calling them pipe-bombs now, there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS so that argument can go straight in the garbage where it belongs. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we should change the blurb to "The Donald calls for peace and love" as that really is unusual? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I guess I'm missing something but it seems to me that someone or some group trying to kill several former and current government officials(mostly or totally on one side of American politics), media staff of one outlet, and putting US Mail staff and the staff of the officials at risk seems important to me. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good, story is a top story on many world-wide news outlets. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many of the above at the moment. It may develop into something more later, in which case we should re-visit, but news story of "no-one hurt in bomb scares" is a fairly lame line at present. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing exploded, no-one was hurt. This is something for a police investigation, not an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am wondering what "WP:MINIMUMNUMBEROFBOMBSMAILED" has to be to merit posting.  We aren't talking about one or two, but a clear coordinated effort to harm many liberals/Democrats, including Robert DeNiro as discovered this morning- an effort that Mayor De Blasio in New York calls terrorism. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would probably support if we reached WP:MINIMUMNUMBEROBOMBSEXPLODEDANDKILLEDOBAMA >=1. Otherwise, these are just futile (and clearly incompetent) attempts to upset people. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Now De Niro has been targeted.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * De Niro is the tipping point? Really?--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears so. You don't mess with Travis Bickle.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support as nominator, also now Joe Biden is on the list. 98.118.32.140 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator and so already assumed to support your own nomination. You cannot !vote again.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – With Biden and DeNiro having been targeted, this is looking more newsy. It bears watching. (Cancelled my oppose above.) – Sca (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As we have a pretty good quality article, the story is developing and readers will be looking for the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I thought the article was surprisingly good quality and the event has been in the news. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is good and very much in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can anyone find reports of a credible trigger? Without one the risk of harm is quite minimal. ghost 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's all that relevant. The quality of the article and the significance that reliable sources have given this is what we're assessing.  Either the sources are or are not covering this story, or the article is or is not up to quality.  Specifics of the story are probably best discussed in other venues, such as the article talk page, etc.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between someone hanging a noose from your tree and putting it around your neck. It's the difference between trying to kill someone and making a political statement. Given so much opposition is tied to body count, the INTENT of the perp and the RISK to targets are incredibly relevant. ghost 16:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, whoever is sending these parcels is clearly completely incompetent, once they start exploding we'll have a reasonably interesting story. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except we're not assessing how interesting the story is to us. We're assessing how reliable sources are covering the story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, if that were the case then we'd be publishing every iota of Trump's "reign" thusfar. We need to apply some common sense filtering to it, that's what the community are here to do.  Once something actually happens that's of note, we should publish.  Until then, this is all a load of bluster, pretence and propaganda.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually we wouldn't, your unfounded insistence that we would to the contrary. Saying it over and over again won't make it true. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course we would. Publishing the same old Trump tripe time and again because the article is of sufficient quality and it's in the news?  What junk.  Try WikiTRIBUNE if you want a ticker.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article in good shape, this is an unusual event, gaining global coverage, and targets are high profile. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The article is pretty good, and this has been all over the news. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I've heard, the White House was not a target of the attacks, but today Joe Biden and Robert De Niro were targeted; the blurb should be corrected. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We rarely post blurbs about terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, so posting an attempted assassination of extremely high-profile people in the U.S. is extremely U.S.-centric. w umbolo   ^^^  19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is unusual – and high-profile. Sca (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) Nominate any Middle East-related terrorism articles you want. Their posting or not being posted has no bearing on this discussion. (2) The U.S. is part of the English-speaking world and quite relevant to the English language Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We post terrorism stories from the Middle East and Africa all the time like the attack on an Iranian parade just last month. Come on man. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean the actual attack where actual people were actually killed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – IMO, one or two new instances of bombs sent to notable Demos would push this into ITN territory, but it's not there yet. Sca (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 10 package bombs isn't enough? What are the WP:MINIMUMPIPEBOMBS? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eleven . Sca (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * According to PBS News Hour, the total of intended recipients is eight. So I must revise my answer to nine. Sca (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The FBI says just now that Cory Booker has also been targeted. Davey2116 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As noted, since they're so incompetently put together, they're more like "pipes with bits of glass and pieces of timer together with some tape that don't even go fizz, let alone bang". I'd say the minimumpipebombs needs to actually act like a bomb, rather than a mild inconvenience.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yep, they're actually pipe bombs. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's time for you to pipe down. Sca (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support Historian said, that Assassination attempts are unprecedented - . 46.71.90.245 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but one problem is that the alleged eminence of historian Douglas Brinkley is denied by some in his bio article, and secondly he seems more interested in attacking Trump than in trying to be an impartial objective historian, which may help to explain the third problem, which is that his claim of unprecedentedness is based on his assertion that this is an attempted assassination of two ex-Presidents, but neither our blurb, nor our current article, nor the Washington Post article that we are currently using in our sources even mentions Bill Clinton, presumably because the parcel was addressed to Hillary (so if Bill died he would presumably just count as collateral damage, as there's no clear evidence the bomber was attempting to assassinate him).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Assassination attempts are unprecedented"? Unprecedented means "never done or known before": there have only a few presidents assassinated and a stack of attempts (several since 2000), so it's hardly "unprecedented". - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but in fairness to the IP, s/he's just slightly misquoting a historian's (pretty dodgy) claim that these particular assassination attempts are unprecedented - any blame seems to rest far more with that historian than with the IP. For all I know, it's even possible that some parts of that historian's claim are right, tho enough of it seems wrong for it to be pretty worthless, at least in my eyes. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Newsworthy, ok article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (1) is the article of sufficient quality? Yes. (2) is there objectively a high level of coverage of the article/event in international news media? Again, yes. As I've said before, if these criteria are met then we should not decline to post due to editors personal (and biased) opinions about which news is the most newsworthy. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 03:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose who cares? No one even died Openlydialectic (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, enough people care that it is being reported... or, "in the news", rather. Since when did ITN officially correlate newsworthiness as being based solely on death tolls? <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 03:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A case of domestic terrorism that has caused no deaths. Too much Americentrism. This is not USApedia. - 39.57.149.65 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability (I leave article quality for others to judge). It's arguably somewhat overhyped, and quite likely not unprecedented (as I've partly discussed above), and nobody has died (at least not so far), but even so it is at least a rather rare example of the at least apparent attempted assassination of a rather large number of assassination targets, some of them of very high notability. And it's also clearly in the news in both America and abroad. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we posted the Congressional Baseball shooting under similar circumstances of a failed politically motivated assassination (I don't think we should have, but just highlighting the precedent) - however, this is, at present, just an interesting story with minimal lasting substance. No harm done, no lingering impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Lingering impact" is not a criterion at ITN, as it would necessarily require a WP:CBALL. We also posted the stabbing of a Brazilian politician last month, so as you point out, precedent favors posting. Clearly a successful attempt is more notable than a failed one, but that does not mean that an attempt cannot be notable itself. ghost 14:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As the initial hysteria is winding down and the substance based reporting has begun, I think we can now see that the devices were credible. The chance of success is not really at issue here; a person who pulls a gun on POTUS is very unlikely to get a clean shot off, but we're going to post it anyway. ghost 10:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1  – With Cory Booker, we're over the top. Altblurb 1 offered above. (AP, BBC, Guardian added as sources above.) Sca (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: "12th suspicious package found ... addressed to former director of national intelligence James Clapper" – Washington Post. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PPS: They've arrested a guy in Fla. No details yet. Sca (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I don't think that we can say in good faith that this isn't in the news and the article quality meets our typical standards. Teemu08 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be fine with supporting a genuine assassination attempt on a suite of the most widely known US political figures. The trouble is the article does not make it clear how credible of an attempt this really was. At least one of the packages had no trigger; many others did not reach their destination. How much beyond run of the mill hate mail really is this? Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you fire a gun at someone, and miss because you're a bad shot, you're still trying to kill them. Someone who mails a bunch of pipe bombs to people, but where the pipe bombs aren't skillfully made, so thankfully no one gets hurt, is no different.  If your standard is "show me they were trying to kill these people", well, they were.  They mailed pipe bombs.  Admittedly, badly made pipe bombs that did not kill as intended, but again, that's no different than a would-be assassin who is a bad shot.  What you're arguing is that the person who missed their target when they fired the gun did so intentionally, and not merely because they were a bad shot.  I'm not sure how we could prove such a shooter was intentionally missing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Preliminary details about the suspect reveal it's a nut with a history of petty criminal convictions. Not exactly what comes to mind when it comes to visualizing a hardened terrorist bent on carrying out a comprehensive assassination plot. I stand by my oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, failed domestic incident involving an incompetent wannabe. Game over. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Close or post? So I think we're done...? I think we have consensus that A) the credible attempted murder of 8-12 prominent members of one one political party is blurbable, and B) the perp is not a good bomb maker. But there's some debate about C) if poor technique renders the attempt "non-credible" and D) if an attack on this scale is nevertheless blurbable even if its chances of success are minimal. ghost 19:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looks like only one guy was arrested. I doubt there's going to be much consensus to post after this. The only reason to post that I see is that the targets were high-profile, but does that mean that we wouldn't post if they weren't high-profile? That is systemic bias unless we give more weight to politicians who are in office. And the numbers people above keep repeating include a lot of former office-holders. The only victims who are in office at the moment are one Senator and one Representative. Not 10 and not 12. w umbolo   ^^^  19:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: altblurb1 does not link to article; accordingly, I'd like to suggest to whomever closes this that "as part of a series of mail bombing attempts." be added to the end of the list. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Link to article added to Alt1. Sca (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - This was the attempted murder of 13 high profile people, why does someone need to be dead for inclusion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 – The suspect has been charged. Thus, Alt2 offered above. This is obviously the No. 1 story in the English-speaking world today and is likely to continue as such through the weekend. Sca (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have formatted Alt2 so that the link to the article is formatted as an inter-wiki link rather than a url. Is this okay? Also, I support Alt2. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. Thanks. Sca (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we're done here, the greatest show not on earth concluded with a meaningless arrest following some bits of glass and wires being sent to various anti-Trumpists. Next.  The Rambling Man (talk)
 * John Bull pointing.png – Sca (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ummm.....this doesn't take away the fact that 14 h14 now high profile people had received pipe bombs. This was large enough to effect an entire nation and get worldwide attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Thankfully no one was killed or injured, so I am not seeing the significance of this. A nutcase does nutty things and is thwarted by the authorities is the ultimate result. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape and this incident has received wide coverage. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - there *might* have been some legitimate reason to oppose it a few days ago. This is no longer the case. And per User:EtienneDolet.  Volunteer Marek   06:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too localized to the United States; if this resulted in death or damage (thankfully, it didn't) it might be a bigger deal but, given the daily bombings elsewhere that actually result in death and damage, elevating mere threats to the main page seems Americentric improperly weighted (by way of example, just today five people were killed in a different bombing ; I don't support, and wouldn't nominate, placing that ITN and therefore can't in good conscience support something in which no one was even injured) Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." At least 14 high profile people got mailed bombs, putting thousands of people at risk(postal workers, staff of the targets, etc.). How many does it have to be to be notable? 331dot (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are bombings occurring that you feel should be nominated, feel free to do so. We can't evaluate what isn't nominated. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 331dot - thanks for the reminder. I've refactored my !vote. Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Twitter was complicit in terrorist threats made by the suspected perp. w umbolo   ^^^  12:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As soon as the story starts going there, with all the blame pointing about why this type of person existed or why people didn't act to stop him, it becomes a non-story for purposes of WP w.r.t. to NOT#NEWS and NPOV. This is the type of story that WP cannot cover well due to RECENTISM issues with analysts and talking heads rather than facts and undisputable statements, and makes for a terrible quality article for ITN. --M asem (t) 13:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Still in the news on Saturday. Since this nom. was reopened, I make it 18.5 supports to 10.5 opposes. Needs attention. Sca (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE, as you know quite well know - SchroCat (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Alt 2 (but with a significantly trimmed list of names) and dated 26 October for the day the suspect was charged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You missed the two most important ones: Maxine Waters and Cory Booker. They are the only ones currently in office. w umbolo   ^^^  18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just took the first three in the list here, and I don't think there should be any more than three in the list, I also don't propose to keep changing it so I suggest you propose at WP:ERRORS (where changes to posted blurbs are best discussed) which set of three you would prefer and when there is consensus for particular set it can eb changed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think WP:ERRORS would probably quite rightly tell them it's not an error. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment probably the most poorly constructed blurb ever posted. Firstly, we never post people who are "charged" with things, we always wait for conviction.  Secondly, this "having mailed" construct is particularly gruesome.  Next, "notable"?  REALLY??  And then this odd "including ... and others", and no serial comma??  Appalling.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See discussion of syntax at WP:ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, it's clear that this is ground-breaking in its lack of quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we never post charges? It's a verifiable fact cited to multiple WP:RS that he's been charged with the crime. Something wrong with that? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Being charged is not the same as being guilty of the crime. Only time we'd likely post an arrest/charge if we were talking a sitting world leader or the like. --M asem (t) 00:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support an orchestrated attempt to assassinate numerous high-profile individuals. Lepricavark (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One person acting alone is not "orchestrated". --M asem (t) 01:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Webb

 * Support no clear issues, well written --DannyS712 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Skip Campbell

 * Sun Sentinel has the 23rd, with staffers speaking to him and Gillum commenting on his death the same day. ghost 13:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work, could you add it to the article? Unfortunately I can't read the Sun Sentinel page, they seem to be blocking access from Europe over GDPR - Dumelow (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I found confirmation of 23 October in the Tampa Bay Times so I have updated the article and moved this to the correct date - Dumelow (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Good work. G2G. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good quality article, no visible issues --DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been ready to go for about 8 hours and 58 minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment another three-and-a-half hours has passed. Is there a good reason that a more recent RD was posted earlier but this one was not, when both were marked as (Ready)?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge

 * Quiet iconic and in the news, but the article has some sourcing issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Just seen this on the BBC. Some issues in the article, but they can be fixed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability seems undeniable, but the article needs a good copy-edit. There are issues with tense, missing articles, etc. ghost 11:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, as a world-leading piece of civil engineering, but oppose on quality. There are lots of cn tags, unreferenced sections, ongoing split and move discussions etc. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the sourcing issues are worked out. The first 2/3rds of the article seem to be in decent shape, but it goes rapidly downhill from there.  If someone could get on the last part of that article, fix the numerous problems, I would remove my opposition.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done a number of edits and hopefully the numerous problems have been solved. Jojoyee (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in theory, looks like major world news. shoy (reactions) 13:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the "Proposed Effects" has exactly one source that I Can see, inappropriate for a section that long. (But this is an important section so just deleting it to "improve" is not going to cut it). --M asem (t) 13:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently there are 11 citation needed tags. Additionally, the subsection regarding logistics does not cite any sources at all. However, once these are fixed I would support the nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality (see below) - I tried to clean up the article a bit, removing unsourced opinions and added source, but the article needs substantially more work before it gets even close to ITN quality. -Zanhe (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability per Modest Genius and others. I leave it to others to decide about quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "Proposed effects" section is pretty much entirely unreferenced. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-blurb 1. Engineering marvel. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be good if the world's longest bridge was actually noted and referenced in the actual article. Stephen 02:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait The opening of the bridge is definitely ITN worthy, but the article isnt quite there. Yet. Therefore, wait for the article to be cleaned up. QuantumFury (talk) 3:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eleven paragraphs lacking a single reference Stephen 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I guess this is what happens when you don't have buy-in from all the stakeholders; nobody feels like writing the Wikipedia article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - significance is clearly there, sourcing is clearly not. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - C'mon guys, every article is work-in-progress. STSC (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cleaned Up - Done a clean-up to the article. Take a look. Jojoyee (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Great work for fixing the big mess. Article is ready, please post ASAP before this goes stale. -Zanhe (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this looks good enough now. Ready to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gilberto Benetton

 * Wait the article is currently a stub, and needs to be expanded before it can be posted. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has only seven sentences in it. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 06:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale I have marked this as stale, since the oldest RD currently listed is from the 23rd, and this RD is from the 22nd. Please let me know if I did this wrong, this is my first time being WP:BOLD and performing a "non-admin closure". --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ilie Balaci

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Idris Legbo Kutigi

 * Comment – Pretty stubby for Main Page material. Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose nearly not a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi TRM, Sca. I have added some more material that I think might push it over the line.  Would you mind taking a fresh look? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good expansion, I made a few tweaks (including removing the "Living people" category and including the "2018 deaths" category"). It's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support short but decent. Vanamonde (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Taiwan train derailment

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once the blurb has been corrected for target location and death count. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - That there is another rail accident currently on ITN should have no bearing whatsoever on this getting posted. Sometimes these things happen in twos or threes. Let's stick to whether or not this is "in the news" (it is), and whether or not the article is up to scratch (it isn't at this point in time). Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article has been bashed into something resembling a shape now. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's barely above 1,000 characters still. That wouldn't even be allowed at DYK, and their standards are below-basement....  (p.s. who mentioned any issues because of another rail incident being up there??)  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is still being worked on, and will expand. Nobody mentioned any issues of another rail accident. As it was likely that someone would object on those ground, I thought I'd get my 2p worth in first. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, your support made me look again, but it still wasn't ready, so that was a bit of a waste of time frankly. We shouldn't be supporting stubs for main page inclusion, no matter what our involvement or interest is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article is growing all the time, almost 2k now. And covers all the main details as currently known. The derailment is also clearly notable enough for ITN. And similar size to Hennenman–Kroonstad train crash when it was accepted here. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article has been expanded and will probably continue to be as new information becomes available. Certainly a notable disaster. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks pretty good, and a train accident, nevermind the death toll, is usually pretty rare and newsworthy -QuantumFury (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joachim Rønneberg

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Better late than never <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Sagay massacre

 * Weak support I can't find news of this without searching for it, which is normally a dealbreaker for me, but then it has been 3 days. The article is pretty great for an event that just happened. I note that Duterte has visited the site, which lends it significance. ghost 12:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support despite having just occurred, the article is in great shape. 23 references, not a single citation needed tag, and, though short, has enough content to explain the event. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just copyedited the article—it badly needed it. It also needs clarification and context for people who don't follow Filipino politics if anyone here can provide them (?): what land reforms are going on? Why is the Duterte administration being accused? what is current public sentiment on the CPP? What's the drug war connection? etc. I've put some potential sources on the talk page. FourViolas (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) BepiColombo launch
I know arrivals of probes are ITNR, but I wasn't sure on the precedent for launches of probes. It's the last in a series of missions. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is in a good shape and it will take 7 years until it gets to Mercury. Now is a good time to post. --Tone 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine, and agree that as the next major event is 7 years from now, we can post that news again then. --M asem (t) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support notability/quality, but blurb does not seem to capture the substance of the mission. Even "...probes that will study Mercury" would be better. ghost 15:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: added other links, and added altblurb per ghost above. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability and quality per everybody above. I much prefer altblurb per ghost. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zheng Xiaosong

 * Support: Quality seems adequate to me (tho we might ideally want one or more second opinions, especially as I've done some work on it myself).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Incidentally, since the nom mentions a possible suicide, I'll briefly mention here that the BBC and the Independent are skeptical about such alleged suicides, tho this seems irrelevant unless we were considering a blurb, (for which I see no current justification, unless and until there is perhaps RS evidence that he is an exceptionally or uniquely high-ranking 'suicide', or perhaps some seemingly as yet unreported international dimension perhaps due to Macao being a former colony of EU member state Portugal, or perhaps some as yet unreported link to the arrested Chinese former Interpol chief which we posted recently, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready: Marking as Ready - it looks ready to me, and since nobody has yet posted a second opinion either way in the last 12 hours, rather than leave it to go stale, I guess either an admin can now post it, or they or anybody else can remove the Ready if they are not satisfied. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Kwok

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I took out a couple of sentences in the lead which weren't substantiated in the main body, otherwise looks OK- Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

 * Comment Saw this too, but looks like the withdrawal should be approved by the Congress ("The INF faces a congressionally imposed deadline early next year. An amendment in the 2019 defence spending bill requires the president to tell the Senate by 15 January whether Russia is in 'material breach' of the treaty, and whether the INF remains legally binding on the US"). Brandmeistertalk  21:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added an altblurb accommodating for that. I still think we can post this now, as it is obvious the congress will vote in favour, and since other actors (China, Russia) understand that, the political repercussions against the United States won't be waiting for the congressional approval either.
 * Oppose only on the basis that this has to be an action taken by Congress, and not just at Trump's whim. --M asem (t) 22:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Trump is not a king, though he fancies himself one.--WaltCip (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose wording is not neutral. Unilateral withdrawal? Anybody can see the wording is pov. if you wanted to keep neutrality you should just say withdrawal not add word like unilateral and make it sound like one side is reasonable and the other unreasonable. Not surprise given how the nominator's non neutral edits on the involved page (, and ). Also the blurb is not complete anyway because it does not mention these chinese reason.  I will start a new one with more neutral and complete blurb. Waskerton (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this isn't a Trump-voice-trumpet-ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose another announcement of intention. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem et al. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment time to close yet another Trumpism. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait wait for if/when it actually happens --DannyS712 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) People's Vote

 * Support significant turn-out, but per the nom, pretty much guaranteed to fail in these parts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant new turn in the Brexit saga.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, the biggest demonstration about Brexit so far. Current organisers estimate 700,000 (compared with "over 1,000" at the "May Means May" gathering in Harrogate) . Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support easily, since we generally have posted national protests that exceed 100,000 ppl. Would like to see more about the planning of this one, as gathering 700,000 on a seemingly arbitrary day is not something happens spontaneously. --M asem (t) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support notable, even has its own dedicated navbox footer, also based on vast size --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Significant march with a very high turnout. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. Someone update the image, please, the current one is about to roll off. --Tone 06:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. The local image is protected, there isn't a Commons version ATM. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So much for the belly-aching about the fears of not getting this item posted. Is this the equivalent of a WP:SNOW posting?--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominated 20:09, last vote in 23:47, posted in 06:31. Almost 4 hours worth of votes. Winter is coming. By comparison, the Women's March was indeed posted, but in much contentious discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, Women's March was far from unanimous, and as you know, there's no minimum time here, but I note that it was very generously allowed to stay "ready" for six hours to allow those on the other side of the world to posture, absolutely none of whom did, let alone oppose. Everything is fine.  And yes, winter is coming for some of us, so WRAP UP warm! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process, when that's obviously not true. I hadn't heard of this event before seeing this nom, but I judged it on the news sources listed (and more that I found after looking it up) and the quality of the article. I wish U.S. stories with the same level of coverage would get the same fair treatment. Davey2116 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process heh! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominator said nothing about Americans. Nominators can have all sorts of reasons for pessimism. If I'd been the nom I'd probably have been more worried about opposition from Brexiteers than from Americans (or other non-Britons - incidentally, I'm Irish, not British, and not American either despite recently being implicitly accused of exemplifying ITN's alleged Pro-American bias ). And as it turns out my worries would also have been unfounded, but that's not really the point. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your worries may be founded after all, as there seems to be some late-breaking opposition to this posting over at WP:ERRORS, mostly over the authenticity of the numbers of those attending.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Wim Kok

 * Oppose several completely unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose still in poor shape, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How so? He only died two days ago. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * More than three more recent deaths already posted, so even if the article was improved enough (which is looking unlikely at the moment), we wouldn't kick a newer one for an older one. This does happen sometimes when there's a glut of notable deaths. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Jamal Khashoggi

 * Since this has already been suspected since he entered the consulate and never left, I propose an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, Alternate blurb would be better, but looks a bit long. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 Huge news Openlydialectic (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment Wait – Obviously the No. 1 story today, but the Saudis' explanation of a "fistfight" seems somewhat implausible. Perhaps wait until the Turks tell all? – Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia is not a living person, so there's no need to censor yourself; this explanation is clearly bullshit. w umbolo   ^^^  13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But the 18 persons who have been arrested are living persons? As far as we know, none of them has yet been charged with any criminal act? Bone-saw or no bone-saw. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb doesn't allege that they are the perpetrators, just that they were detained and charged for it. Notice that they aren't named (even though Wikipedia has articles about some of them, with photos). w umbolo   ^^^  15:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They've been formally charged? With what? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that they haven't actually been charged with anything. I'm not familiar with Saudi Arabian laws. According to the U.S. embassy, Suspects may be detained without charges or legal counsel, and with limited access to a consular officer, for months during the investigative stage of criminal cases. w umbolo   ^^^  17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment already listed in Ongoing. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure how a death can be ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it can. Just ask Franco. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The story would be removed from ongoing, added as a blurb (which I btw support), and if it still meets ongoing status when it gets pushed off as a blurb, perhaps readded there. No one is calling for duplication. Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * → It seems highly likely that more info will be forthcoming, so IMO it's still premature for ITN. Sca (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The next step is a legal conviction, which will take months, and will certainly not gain consensus to be posted. w umbolo   ^^^  15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the next step would be the release of detailed evidence by Turkey, which would certainly be ITN material. Sca (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation. w umbolo   ^^^  17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support (though I'd want to see the article's name stablized before posting), with the pulling of the ongoing for this. Having Saudi Arabia admit its wrongdoing is basically a point of closure on this. I am sure there will be additional repercussions but the issues around this situation was the denial the Saudis insisted on creating international tension. --M asem (t) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Story has major geopolitical implications. Support ALT1 blurb and removal from ongoing Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Do we really 'know' (whatever 'know' 'really' means) that he's dead? As Altblurb1 (our seemingly currently most objective blurb on offer) seemingly implies, all we have is a Saudi statement which most people describe as 'incredible', 'bullshit', etc, while simultaneousy accepting it as 'proof' that he's dead. How can we be sure that saying he's dead (and killed unintentionally) isn't simply less inconvenient for the Saudis than a hypothetical scenario in which for instance he's actually still alive and still being interrogated and tortured? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The scenario you're describing is just so unlikely under the circumstances that, if what you were describing was the case, it would be newsworthy in its own right - like a reveal that Elvis Presley is still alive somewhere.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case I doubt they'll find much in the trash cans? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies, which have helped me make up my mind. This case is not remotely comparable to Elvis, for whom we have a mountain of RS confirmation that he is dead. For Khashoggi, if this were an RD proposal, I would at least half expect a few opposes on the basis that the 'reliably sourced confirmation' part of Criterion 2 ('Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.') had not clearly been met. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks. The alleged unlikelihood of my proposed alternative scenario, besides actually being a great deal less unlikely than Elvis being alive, is not particularly relevant since nobody is suggesting posting it (it's merely there to explain to unquestioning believers in the Saudi claim one possible way that the claim might be untrue, quite possibly among several such ways, as well as to elicit further info to help me make up my mind how I should vote, which it has successfully done, as the responses have now helped convince me to oppose). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb1, pull from ongoing as per above.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Bits continue to appear – this is still a developing story, i.e. still ongoing. Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: No doubt this observation will draw fire from someone, but FWIW, as of 17:45 non-English European Wikis continue to omit the Khashoggi story from their ITNs. – Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are going to post a blurb, then the ongoing is not appropirate. if the blurb rolls off the list and the story is still developing significant, then re-adding may be appropriate. --M asem (t) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support moving from ongoing to blurb and remove the "detains 18" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and keep in Ongoing. This happened ages ago, so it would already be superseded before it was even posted. Keeping it in "ongoing" is the best approach here as it's a slow-burn story rather than anything particularly having happened in the past 24 hours. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It "happened ages ago" only because the Saudi government wouldn't admit it. That makes it somehow less significant?? I am dumbfounded by that argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not insignificant, but it happened two weeks ago so is no longer a recent story. We have three stories dating from the 17th or later, which supersede Khashoggi's death because they happened later. We can't remove those stories to post this one. That's the rules of ITN. The only recent development is the admission of the Saudis that he's dead, but that's just a small piece of a long slow burn story. Which is exactly why it's in Ongoing, covering every development over a period of weeks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's definitely newsworthy and I think pushing it out to a blurb will finally see it drop out nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Announcing that he was killed (without additional explanations in the blurb) would seem accurate without POV, and then it can return to Ongoing as it slides off the template. This is a significant development that I think would be the only posting related to his death relating to his case. Other updates would stay in upgoing, barring additional major diplomatic fallout.  Spencer T• C 21:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and Keep in Ongoing at least for the time being (and Strongly Oppose any blurb that states he is dead, as distinct from merely reporting the Saudi claim that he is dead). We already have him quite satisfactorily at Ongoing. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks, along with some evidence (see replies to my question above) that at least some editors here seem to think that any skepticism about the Saudi claim that he is dead is on a par with believing that Elvis is alive (ironically almost everybody also seems to think that every other part of the same Saudi claim is 'bullshit', 'incredible', etc). Of course, probably like most people, I think that he is very probably dead (tho I can't be certain of this, and I've already offered in my above Question one (arguably very unlikely but) possible scenario for how it might not be true). But ITN is not the place to post 'Most people probably think Khashoggi very probably is dead'. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error. However in practice this now temporarily forces me to conditionally change my !vote to supporting altblurb 1, if that is what's needed in practice to get the current (at least in my view) unsatisfactory wording out of Ongoing, and the assessing admin should please interpret my !vote in that light. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All blurbs state the truth, that the Saudis have stated he was killed. That is fact.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The original blurb does not say that. And ALT blurb II seems to assume the death is a fact. For some reason, folks seem reluctant to believe the claims made by the Saudis? Even if they were happy to accept the claims previously made by anonymous sources. I guess Tlhslobus might be satisfied by the video and audio promised by the Turkish government. I'm surprised he doesn't !vote "Wait". It's still very much "in the news", of course, whether or not the death itself can be seen as "a fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Martin. I agree that Alt blurb I states the facts (whether these deserve to replace Ongoing with a blurb is a separate question). TRM's claim that the main blurb (and probably also alt blurb 2) is also 'fact' would be liable to lead to screams about WP:OR and/or WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV if it were used in an article, so it would seem very unwise to use either at ITN, probably at least as long as there are still a significant number of WP:RS that are still exercising caution. I've now added the words 'at least for the time being' after my !vote as (possibly useful) clarification in light of your suggestion that I should have !voted 'wait' - but it's unclear precisely what we should be waiting for. We're hardly going to be posting a blurb saying 'A consensus of ITN editors agrees the number of Reliable Sources still exercising caution about reporting Khashoggi's death as a fact, while still not yet zero, has fallen to a level so insignificant that the consensus is that it no longer requires to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV and UNDUE rules' . Meanwhile we still have it in Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of a blurb saying "Video and audio evidence, published by the Turkish government, shows that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't even read the main blurb, mea culpa, but the others report the truth. I would advocate that the ongoing be changed to "death of .." per the initial report here, especially in the face of the news from the Kingdom.  However it happened, it's pretty clear he's dead, per RS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty widely reported that he is dead. I'm not sure anyone has seen anything that would remotely pass as "proof" of this in a court of law. But then an actual body is not always required. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, just look at this where there's no question over him being "dead". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Switching from my earlier Oppose, as a google for "Reported death of Jamal Khashoggi" (in quotes) for the past 24 hours gives just 2 items, while removing 'Reported ' from the same search gives at least 10 pages of items. This seemingly means that there is no longer a sufficient minority of RS exercising caution about whether his death is a fact to require that caution to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV rules. Any of the blurbs will do, tho the altblurbs are more informative, and either altblurb is about equally acceptable to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My thanks to Martinevans123 and The Rambling Man for their helpful comments.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, per comments above by TRM and others, I'd also prefer to see references to the alleged detentions either reworded in the altblurbs to something like "and says that it has detained ..." or removed from them altogether.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. They changed the story:  w umbolo   ^^^  08:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so no gentlemanly fisticuffs after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Wrestling moves such as chokeholds presumably date back at least to classical antiquity in the ancient Olympics, but it may perhaps be a bit too soon for jokey public pseudo-discussions about the social class (or alleged lack thereof) of the alleged killers to be deemed to be in publicly acceptable taste, so maybe I'd better not say any more on the subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell, the original stories just said "fight", probably because the official statement just said "fight". Someone added the "fist" later, presumably to not confuse readers who think a fight is talking loudly, tweeting often or having cancer. But who would do such a thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful links, InedibleHulk. Surprisingly poor English for an official Saudi statement on such a seemingly key topic (says I, in a clause that lacks a verb, followed by an ungrammatical combo of 3rd person verb and 1st person pronoun ), tho ultimately that seems irrelevant to us here. But I note that none of our proposed blurbs mention fights or fists or chokeholds, so this whole discussion is perhaps seemingly veering a bit too much towards WP:NOTFORUM (with perhaps me among the worst offenders ). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose But move to recent deaths Abote2 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 *  →  Inconclusive follow-up stories continue Sunday — AP, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters — ∴ keep in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The instructions for this page ask "Please do not... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support As noted above, a death should not be left in ongoing. This has attained far too much coverage and is too unusual to be relegated to RD. If it turns out that Khashoggi is still alive somehow, that would be an even bigger story and we'd post that. Any of the blurbs are fine for me. Davey2116 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question How many times are we going to keep moving this nomination up the ITNC date queue? This nomination is, or should be, stale. Yes, you can also call this an oppose on those grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's the point, this is the end game, so moving it to blurb now means it will gravitate off. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm pretty sure a death qualifies as something significant that should be separate from ongoing, and this is pretty "In the news", as well as factoring in the political consequences QuantumFury (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted, with a bare-bones blurb (removed the bit about detainees). There is consensus, albeit a weak consensus, for this item. First, this nomination is about the announcement of his death by Saudi Arabia; arguing that this is an old story is, therefore, a weak argument in my assessment. There is not consensus on adding the number detained, but that does not affect the rest of the blurb. Also removed from ongoing, obviously. Further discussion about the wording of the blurb is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vanamonde. Actually the consensus doesn't seem particularly weak to me - I currently make it 11-4 (or 12-4 counting the nom, and it's seemingly even stronger if we discount votes without a supporting reason). That's quite a bit above the 2 to 1 we normally deem a consensus. Your wording also seems fine to me, and in line with the facts and with the previous discussion, so Post-Posting Support on wording. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if this isn't a clear consensus, I'm not sure what is. Perhaps there's something else we're not seeing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * since you asked; the 11th support was added as I was writing my closing rationale, which I did not bother to amend, since it did not affect the eventual outcome. Also, while the quantum of support does matter, !votes without supporting rationales are usually not very helpful, especially when the nomination itself did not address the question of why this should be posted now (which is a slightly different question from whether it should be posted at all, as it already had been). Vanamonde (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a clear consensus, rather than a "weak" consensus, whichever you look at it. It's a shame that this specific admin has been making up its own narrative. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

→ On, the other hand, AP today quotes Erdoğan as saying Turkey will reveal full details of its investigation on Tuesday, Oct. 23. — Wait. – Sca (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * About time you started using conventional markup, your odd symbology makes it too difficult to respond. But in this instance, no.  We don't hold our news to wait for his lord almighty Erdogan to reveal jack shit.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your tone is disparaging, but not new. – WP:CIV
 * Direct, yes, disparaging, no. We simply aren't going to "wait" for the ever-sparkling Erdogan's "big reveal".  That's not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jack Shit – very insightful.
 * Well indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll use whatever symbology seems to me to be most effective, Jack. Sca (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, best if you use conventional markup, like the rest of us. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Sca's earlier 'wait' !vote was already counted above among the 4 against (just in case somebody was mistakenly counting this latest 'wait' as a new !vote against). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong with that? – Sca (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) October 2018 migrant caravan

 * Oppose this would have to be Ongoing; I don't see the importance or the article quality to justify that at this time. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for now. Article qualityBabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be nominated for ongoing since this is not one-off event but the article needs more content even for that. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure of the ITN significance here. Article quality and length is also not main-page worthy in my view. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support interesting phenomenon, all over the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly not all over the news, and by the look of the article, almost a footnote in this ongoing silliness perpetuated by bonkers governance. Add it to the list.  Perhaps we should have a "Top Trumps" list on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Tom Delahunty

 * Oppose this is stale; the oldest RD on the current main page is from the 16th. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Not exercising is worse than smoking

 * Oppose everybody already knew that not exercising was bad for you. I don't believe CNN is not a reliable source for this type of coverage; they will reliably over-promote minor results of this type. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN is reporting the publication of a report in JAMA (this one, I beleive which I believe would fall within WP:MEDRS. We do expect any scientific or medical advance story to have some mainstream coverage to show the journal topic is "in the news", but obviously we're using the journal article for the accuracy, not the mainstream media. --M asem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not groundbreaking, and also for something like this, we should probably be using medical standard reliable sources, which CNN definitely isn't. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ITN material. And there has been no update to the target article so there is nothing to link to in the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just not a major revelation. Non-exercise and smoking are both bad, just their relative "badness" was not objectively determined before. It would have been much more shocking if exercising was considered worse than smoking, for example. --M asem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on merits. However I am not sure the target article has been adequately updated for this blurb. Otherwise I would note that the target article is in very good shape. As someone who does not get even remotely adequate exercise, and who also enjoys cigars... this was a bit disturbing. I should probably do something. Maybe update my will. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course you could also simply ignore it, on the basis that worrying about it may cause you health-damaging stress, which might be a lot better for the finances of the so-called 'health' industry than for your health. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Apart from all the other objections above, this seems like the usual quasi-POV scare story based on undiscussed questionable stats supporting an established orthodoxy that inevitably also supports plenty of vested interests (many of them part of a 'health' industry that makes more money out of us when more of us are sick, but still expects us to unquestionably accept its advice about how to avoid getting sick). And so far it's just a single study that has not yet been criticized (or at least not in this CNN article), let alone replicated. But we are told: "Researchers retrospectively studied 122,007 patients who underwent exercise treadmill testing at Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2014 to measure all-cause mortality relating to the benefits of exercise and fitness. Those with the lowest exercise rate accounted for 12% of the participants." I've highlighted the word 'patients', which shows that all the people in the study were already sick in some way, and thus not representative of the population at large, even tho nobody (or at least nobody in this CNN article) points this out to CNN's readers. Common sense should tell you that the sicker you are the less well you will usually be able to perform on a treadmill; and, at least according to I-forget-which recent BBC programme, this wouldn't be the first time that public health has been harmed by propagandists blaming ill-health on lack of exercise instead of the other way round. And of course I have no way of knowing how many other possible flaws are not being pointed out to us. Notice also the POV CNN headline ("study reveals" instead of "study reports" or "study claims"). And all this also ignores how beneficial this kind of distracting scare story is directly to institutions like the tobacco and sugar industries (and thus also indirectly to the so-called 'health' industry thru ensuring it gets paid by more people suffering from smoking-related and sugar-related illnesses, etc). And so on. It's not part of ITN or Wikipedia's purpose to facilitate maximizing the profitability of such dubious scare stories. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Classic trivia. Better suited for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it would be such a good idea for us to publicize it thru DYK either (tho this is the wrong forum for such a discussion).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose BTW...has anyone got a light? I'm going for a jog :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  05:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't - you'll enjoy your ciggies a lot better if you stay away from the jogging, and it will also save you from all the free radical damage that exercise (allegedly) causes to your body. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Interesting. Does this mean we can have a cheeky cigarette here and there as long as we get some exercise? AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Amritsar train accident

 * Support one of, if not the, worst rail accident in the world this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, just give the news sources a few more hours to narrow down facts and figures. No question this is ITN. --M asem (t) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question can someone tell me how a car accident which kills 20 (the worst in nearly a decade) in a country with relatively good safety and a comprehensive article gets sent to AFD and eventually closed at ITN, but a train accident in a country where transportation safety is sub-par, the article is sub par, and the accident isn't even the worst in India in the last two years get sped to the main page? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the article for this yet, so no comment on that aspect, but the only thing comparable between this and the New York state car crash is that they both involve people dying as a result of a mode of transport. Cars crash all the time, frequently killing people while doing so. Trains do not hit crowds of people with any regularity - in fact I can only find three incidents in the past 10 years, all with significantly lower death tolls: 2008, India (16 killed); 2010, Spain (12 killed);  2013, India (28 killed).  I'm also not seeing why you think this is being "sped" to the main page? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, accidents involving mass transport, which generally are public or corporate-run, are going to garner a lot of more long-term attention as there will be detailed reviews to try to determine the cause and how that can be remedied to prevent future accidents in such forms. Accidents involving private, non-mass-transport vehicles are not going to have the same rigor and follow through in terms of investigation and resolution. --M asem (t) 20:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the answer is that the car crash should have been posted as well, but that's been and gone now. This one is clearly notable, though. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The hasty AfD nom for the Schoharie accident, as well as a still-unresolved (shouldn't be, but no one's closed the discussion yet) move request, probably did more to kill that article's chance of making ITN than any discussion here. I'm still working on the article for DYK, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that you're being incredibly petty and not supporting your cause at all? We posted Hurricane Michael (which killed people across Central America) only after it arrived in Florida, with a blurb which pretty much left Central America as a second thought. Your claims of anti-American bias are paranoid Trump-style bullshit with zero basis in fact. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that ↑↑↑↑↑↑ The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears to be adequate and I expect will be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per Ad Orientem. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support very clearly notable. This is quite possibly the worst train crash of the 21st century in terms of fatalities to non-passengers. The article is in adequate shape considering the sources presently available. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Jesus Christ... Openlydialectic (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support no issues currently visible on the page, definitely ITN worth and significant. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment unanimous support and ready to go (has been for quite some time). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I know I was one of the supporters above, but there are many supporters, no opposers and it's been marked ready for about 12 hours already. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Åke Ortmark

 * Weak support article is very weak but what's there is ref'd, so it's passable (barely). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Quiet short, but looks good. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support short, but not a stub. And well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ayub Bachchu

 * Oppose mainly unreferenced and poorly written. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose mainly per TRM. Article needs some copy-editing and better referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Works section needs sourcing, copy-editing needed, short information on career and overall poorly written. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is poorly written and should have more inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: N. D. Tiwari

 * Oppose rather oddly, amongst a predominantly well-referenced article, there sits a whole section without citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd, I swear I referenced that section. Just added sources so article should be ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support all fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Better referenced now, but sensationalist language in the controversies section that needs fixing ("He disgraced himself and the office of Governor by involving in a sex scandal..."). This is still covered by BLP. Also contains some bad grammar. Vanamonde (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * & : fixed any issues address and cleaned up the controversy section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Dick Slater

 * Weak support mostly very well referenced and okay presentation, a few uncited claims, but only a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment generally well-referenced, but relies on wrestling websites for the material on the stabbing and shooting in "Personal Life". Two of the three links therein are also dead. Vanamonde (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Assassination of Abdul Raziq Achakzai

 * RD only I don't see where this exceeds BAU for the ongoing conflict. If the attack itself was significant, or the target particularly well known or high-ranking (federal Minister, leader of parliament), a case could be made. ghost 11:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose local police chief doesn't rise to the level we usually expect for a death blurb, even in this particular manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well, this may qualify as the first honest day's work the Taliban have done, but as far as officialdom goes, I don't see Raziq as being sufficiently notable to qualify; although the article's not in bad shape, considering it's such a recent event. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose these articles specifically, would support an article on the attack itself if it were of sufficient quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose but fine for RD. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Zalmai Wesa is too short for RD: Abdul Raziq Achakzai is okay for length but is dominated by negative material. It could still be okay, but it needs more scrutiny; there has been insufficient discussion of article quality above. Vanamonde (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. We normally discuss significance first, and then quality second.  Keep up.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) US Leaves Postal Union

 * Oppose Blurb is misleading. Trump has proposed a renegotiation of terms, after which the U.S. may pull out.  This will begin a one-year withdrawal process, as set forth in the UPU Constitution.  During this period, the Department of State will seek to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements that resolve the problems discussed in the Presidential Memorandum.  If negotiations are successful, the Administration is prepared to rescind the notice of withdrawal and remain in the UPU.  It's a notification of an intent to maybe pull out after January 1, 2020.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure. This is similar to Brexit. The US announced it's leaving. It's possible that they rescind that if they get good terms, but the fact is that they started the one year mandated process to leave. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jayron.--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose just not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above and we can safely close this. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait What is certainly 100% factual and true is that the United States is filing notice that it will withdraw from the UPU, but I suggest waiting until it actually happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per LaserLegs and Jayron --DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. If/when the US leaves it might be worth posting. Starting the leaving process is just the first step. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisbeth Palme

 * No doubt notable enough, but the article is short and in rather bad shape. It needs to be fixed before posted. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose take out the tangentially related shooting info (which is unsourced) and you have a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. The article lacks depth in covering enough of her life story.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support following expansion shown below. Just a question, why the italics in her name in the lead paragraph?  That seems non-standard formatting for Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a stub-class article that has a section that lacks inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, ,  - I have expanded and improved the article. Added several sources. Take a look.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - after improvements and expansion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks better now. Now the focus of the article is on her, as it should be. <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ara Güler

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support he appears quite notable. I've fixed up the reference issues. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article still needs work on referencing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article's "philosophy of photography" section needs more inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Scott

 * Support no concerns. ghost 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support saw this earlier via Dumelow, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment c'mon, five hours elapsed... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack

 * I'm ambivalent about the nomination, but if it does get posted the blurb should say 'Kirch, Crimea' without specifying that it is in either Russia or Ukraine. The Russian annexation has not been internationally recognised and Crimea is still claimed by Ukraine. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Crimea is much more informative for the reader. I've added 2 altblurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, using altblurb 2 until it becomes clearer whether this is political terrorism, or just a US-style non-political mass shooting by a suicidal person, of the kind that we frequently hear from elsewhere, especially from the USA (I leave others to judge target article quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider striking "US-style" in the interest of CIV. ghost 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, failing that, consider making it "U.S.-style" in conformance with U.S.-English usage. Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL, Sca, you wicked U.S. cultural imperialist. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think it should be fairly obvious to most editors that I was not intending to be uncivil in any way, but the fact remains that at least most non-Americans (and I suspect most Americans too, incidentally) tend to hear such stories coming mainly from America, so it seemed (and still seems) a short and relevant way to make more understandable what I was trying to say in a somewhat delicate area (what is and is not described as terrorism is often a political and civility minefield, quite possibly also in this case). I have now struck the allegedly-offending phrase as requested, and have instead said roughly the same thing at much greater length (along with this even longer explanation), and consequently with slightly more accuracy (and thus perhaps also slightly more 'sensitivity'/'civility'). But I hope I am not unwisely setting an unfortunate precedent in which fear of getting accused of possible incivility by those concerned for the sensitivities of the possibly hyper-sensitive (but not unduly concerned about the effect of such accusations on editors at the receiving end, and the consequent damage to things like ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain productive editors) ends up greatly increasing the difficulty of saying perfectly reasonable things here, as well as further damaging ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain editors, contrary to the aims of WP:WER. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If I thought you intended to be uncivil, I would never have asked you to strike it (if a certain other editor had said it, I wouldn't have wasted my breath). Stereotypes come from a grain of truth, but they're still hurtful. As this shows, nasty stuff happens everywhere. The U.S. can do bad all by itself; citing us in an event elsewhere seems like piling on. ghost 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's just forget about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also striking 'especially from the USA', as it no longer matters whether people understand what I'm talking about or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – "Terrorist" may be mistaken. AP and BBC quote Russian officials as saying the attack was perpetrated by an 18-year-old student, one Vladislav Roslyakov, acting alone. Sca (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: "A polytechnic" won't be understood by many Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest "a technical school" or "a vocational school." Sca (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, some of us older UK editors remember polytechnics, before they were all turned into universities overnight.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In Canada, any child old enough to watch television is officially refreshed on the École Polytechnique massacre at least once a year. Some might not wonder what those words mean the first time, or even the second. But eventually, we all speak the same language. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Alt-2 - certainly in the news, but it's better to err on the side of caution and simply label it as an attack, as the motivation is not fully clear at this time. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we have two mainstream RSs quoting officials, perhaps we could make it "An attack by a student...." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - notable evet, this is not an often thing in Russia. 46.70.144.68 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * → Now dpa quotes investigators saying "an attack at a college in Crimea is no longer being treated as a terrorist incident" but rather as a lone-shooter rampage. Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted I omitted "terrorist" from the blurb, and made a few other tweaks for clarity. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada marijuana legalization

 * Oppose Posted back in June when the legislation was passed. -M asem (t) 07:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdraw My bad. Personally posting it now would've made more sense in my opinion, but what's done is done.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Berthold Leibinger

 * Support - article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ismail Amat

 * Support - Indeed. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, no question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this one looks like it's been ready for about 30 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Kiernan

 * Weak support Meets minimum standards, but there's about the same amount of content regarding his sailing career (3 sentences) as his DUI (2 sentences): would like to see more about his career sailing.  Spencer T• C 23:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-referenced but needs more work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for RD, so post. But needs more work overall to not risk AfD nom in future.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Dee Huddleston

 * Support Looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Short but very well sourced. No visible issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) India guru Rampal sentenced

 * Support I have added blurb 2. The article is fully referenced with in-line references from RS. This is a big news. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. All I'm seeing is a local murder case with no major impacts. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. We post convictions, not sentencing. That said, would this be like a Catholic Bishop being convicted of murder? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the gurus were that organized, this may be more like David Karesh. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Conviction was 10/11, FWIW, but we can post whenever we damn well please. The right time may vary by the nature of the case and the local judicial system, and there's no need to let precedent prevent us from improving WP. For my part, I think the initial arrest (and rioting) might have been blurbable. I'm sorta meh here, but I won't oppose. ghost 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We posted the Larry Nassar sentencing; I'm sure there are other examples.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally ITN has required at least a conviction. That doesn't preclude posting at later stages if that's when it's in the news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We posted nearly every update in the Oscar Pistorius saga. The time to post is when the item is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (Reply/Comment): Not really like a Catholic Bishop, as he's his own boss. And not exactly like David Koresh, due far fewer killings but far more followers. BBC says India has tens of thousands of gurus, and this one has tens of thousands of followers, which suggests he's slightly more popular than the average guru, but not particularly special. The BBC adds he'd be unknown to most Indians were it not for the murder charge. To me at least, it looks a bit like an Indian version of the OJ Simpson celeb murder trial, except that OJ was an A-lister before the murders, whereas this guy was a Z-lister, but one with some followers prepared to do a bit of fighting in his defence. I'm not sure whether any of this gives it encyclopedic value or not, so when in doubt stay neutral, which is what I'm currently planning to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article needs refs and a copyedit. It's interesting, he was convicted of murder for deaths that occurred during clashes between followers and his police -- but the article has no details on that incident. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A little context. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The worlds leading search engine returns relevant content about a specified search term? TRM I'm shocked, I had no idea that was a thing. Thank you so much! --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to be a smart arse - you said "not seeing this in the news", turns out it is. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I look to the aggregators bing and google news to see if it pops up in the feed (I browse in-private so there is no bias to my previous activity). I didn't see this conviction. Then I read the article, it says he was convicted of murder and provides no details of the murder. An oppose double-whammy for me. --LaserLegs (talk)
 * Over-trumped your pointy bollocks. Shame, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, obviously you didn't look very far as numerous articles, such as this one from the BBC, give details of the conviction. AusLondonder (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer, LaserLegs, is that you listen when people tell you it is in the news, and especially you LOOK at their sources. Merely because you aren't looking in the news sources covering this, like the two noted in the template, doesn't mean it is.  The world is a big place.  Sometimes people who aren't you know different things.  Your own lack of knowledge is not justification for making decisions.  Your own refusal to accept knowledge people are directing you to is also not hopeful for your ability to contribute.  If you want people to take your opinion into consideration, you need to make it clear you are basing it on knowledge and not deliberate, willful ignorance.  So long as you continue to make it clear that you intend to vote based on your own refusal to look at sources people are showing you, that vote will be given zero weight in the final assessment.  I am only telling you this because you appear to want your opinion to count.  It will not if you keep down this path.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tlhslobus is correct. He came in the news only because his followers started firing at the police who had come to his ashram to arrest him (it took police a few days to enter his ashram). Before this event, most Indians didn't know about him. --ASF23 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) European floods & Hurricane Leslie

 * Tentative Support on importance; the article could use some cleanup/expansion before posting. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018 European floods isn't good enough right now; though it's best to include it in the blurb if it can be improved. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated article, but concerned that there are three weather patterns causing floods that just happened to occur at similar times, rather than a coherent period of flooding. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Hurricane Leslie, but Oppose European floods. I agree with nom that the Hurricane Leslie article is significant. It is also well referenced, detailed, and even contains relevant images. The European floods article, on the other hand, has a few problems: potential original research, a third (3/9) of the references aren't in English, and is merely a list of floods that may not even be related (see the talk page). Accordingly, I would support the current blurb IF the link to the European floods page was not bolded (and thus not a main article) but just linked to. (I didn't make an alt-blurb given how minor this change is). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are not any European floods! There are some unrelated local events, but nothing on continental scale. (We pray for rain in Central Europe!) That beeing said. Article about Hurricane Leslie is in good shape and describe very unusual (once per 100 years) and sadly also deadly metorogical event. So I support only its nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created altblurb one that reflect my comment above, and I believe that it also reflects your comment here. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is better. But majority of casualties in France was due to record flooding. So it is not just about wind as blurb suggest. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support with altblurb per Jenda H. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Hurricane only. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sears files for bankruptcy

 * Support: Its used to be a huge company and force in american retail, so its collapse is significant --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is dreadful. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not yet the end of Sears, only a mechanism to allow debt restructuring from which it will emerge. Not the first or last brick and mortar store that failed to adapt digitally. Stephen 04:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvements -- 2607:FEA8:A2DF:F1B2:AD67:243C:4AAB:7508 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principal, oppose due quality. As to timing, It's hard to see another more significant moment emerging later. There's might be some zombification for a year or so, but the company is dead now. Not the first or the last to go this way, but the most significant. Sears was the most important retailer in America for generations. ghost 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is in a dreadful state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the merits. Sears (and Kmart, which has the same owner, too) has been in a slow death for several years now.  This is just the latest step.  If they go out of business totally, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is too poor for the main page (and rather embarrassing given the likely influx of pageviews now). Also, particularly in the U.S., bankruptcy appears to be a way to restructure you business and escape debt liabilities. It does not mean the business will close. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Bankruptcy does not mean closure.--WaltCip (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the time being. If/when the company goes Chapter 7, then it would be the right time. I also agree with everyone above in stating that the article needs major improvements. Since I started editing the article (which was fairly recently), I've spent my time mostly just keeping it up-to-date. Hopefully while the proceedings are tied up in court I'll have the chance to actually start restructuring it. Specter Koen (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability, per Stephen above. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Allen

 * Support: Power beat me to it by a few minutes. Article is well-sourced and has no issues aside of the died template.  p  b  p  22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose a few CN tags (added by me) but none of the statements are outrageous. Allen touched so many lives who'll never know his name. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't handle the volume of edit conflicts; if they're still there in an hour I can fix them. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * weak support blurb Pretty darn big as the co-founder of the once largest company in the worldLihaas (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD. He co-founded Microsoft and gave away his money wisely. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasons? ITNC is not a vote.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No reasons needed for an RD listing. Stephen 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: Influential businessman and philanthropist, technology pioneer, article looks good (only problems I see, that may get fixed soon given the huge flood of edits, are: citations needed, and 2 small sections that may need to be rewritten) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Has citations needed tag with two citations needed (by my quick reckoning) and an apparently problematic Honors and Awards section ( it is referenced though) Other than that, referencing is good. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I have addressed the cn tags. The awards and recognition section could do with some work but it does not seem to be a showstopper. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tags about his cancer need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just casually checked the article and added some more (citation tags). Sorry. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to apologize. I have addressed those tags also. Problems are much easier to fix when they are tagged. Looking further through the article there may be other hidden citation problems, but nothing immediately stands out. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) ROC–Constantinople Patriarchate

 * Comment We need a standalone article on this, IMHO. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess the blurb means to say "severs"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if there were a stand-alone article, I might support ongoing; if this is going to continue until the two sides are fully separated there will be multiple further events. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With no other ideas on how to name this, perhaps Schism of 2018 is a sufficiently descriptive interim name for a stand-alone article? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the articles will be of sufficient quality by the time the Tomos of Autocephaly officially is issued in November (or, if the planned announcement is scrapped). I think it's unlikely to happen before this announcement goes stale. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I saw enough coverage on this, including leading up to the actual event, to support. Banedon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * support was gonna nominate it too. This'd be like WP existing during the west-east schism,but just east-east schism. Eastern Christianity schism? Would be wary of uppercase S in schism just yet.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There have certainly been other Eastern schisms, though; the Bulgarian schism would likely count. I've created this as Schism of 2018; please feel free to move (but don't move-war). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm done with that article for the night. Hopefully enough of an outline that others can contribute to it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added some links to sources on the talk page and, for the first time in all my years here, I have put out an off wiki appeal for help with this. We just don't have enough editors who are familiar with Orthodox Christianity and the complexities of this particular situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should it not be Muscovite schism since that's where the breakage came from? Never mind the background.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe this Russian wikipedia article can give some guidance on how to form this new article: Предоставление автокефалии православной церкви на Украине — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose solely on article quality. Support on the merits. (I have added an alt blurb.) I am saddened to admit this, but none of the relevant Orthodox Church related articles are even remotely close to acceptable condition for promotion on the main page. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the blurb does not explain the impact or implications to non-Catholics. A 150m person organisations sheds ~5m members.  So what? Stephen 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb cannot be expected to explain the details to the non-Orthodox (incidentally this is NOT about Catholics as usually understood in the West, where the term tends to be understood as meaning Roman Catholics). The article (or at least the section related to the split if we don't go for a stand-alone article) should try to make that understandable. Also it's not about "150 million loses 5 million", but more like "300 million seems to be splitting into two or more sides (pro and anti-Moscow/Putin sides, and perhaps some neutrals too), tho the precise numbers on each side are still unclear, but pro and anti sides each have far more than just 5 million".Tlhslobus (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And Vladimir Putin doesn't seem to think it's trivial (for details, see my reply/comment to Laserlegs below). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability. It should also be useful for our readers to get an article that corrects some misinformation out there, such as that the EP has already recognised an independent Ukrainian Church (when the EP has merely decided to do so in future, presumably when the two independent Ukrainian churches have been merged). But I'll leave it to others to decide when adequate article quality has been reached.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This article, altho written from an anti-Russian perspective, and probably suffering from a lot of wishful thinking as regards the future, seems to offer a reasonably clear explanation of what has actually happened so far, and may be a useful citation in relevant articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb (if can get an article thats good) Currently, there is no tomos of autocephaly. There are three major churches in Ukraine. One is under Moscow, and is in communion with the rest of the churches, and they do not want autocephaly. There is also two schismatic churches, which is not in communion with any other church. They desire autocephaly, and desire to be recognized as a canonical church after creating a schism. The EP has decided to open communion with one of these schismatic churches, while the rest of the other Orthodox Churches still consider them schismatic and are not in communion with them. Further, the EP has stated they desire to grant this newly formed "church" a tomos of autocephaly "later". According to the Church in Russia and Church in Ukraine (non schismatic) what the EP has done is uncanonical. Other churches, such as Serbia, has denounced it as well, but has not taken any official action as of yet. Some churches, such as Antioch has called that a council should be called to discuss the issue.2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, once the bolded article is in adequate shape. An interesting and unusual news story, probably with significant future ramifications. Either the original blurb or the alt blurb seem OK to me although the original blurb looks a bit better. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question could someone explain this in laymans terms? It's my (poor?) understanding that there are 14 "jurisdictions" in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), the one in Constantinople recognized Ukrainian (church) independence from Moscow, and as a result the ROC unfriended them. So the other 12 are still just doing their thing right? This isn't a fracturing of the EOC, or even the ROC unilaterally removing itself, it's just two partner churches bickering? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, its two local churches bickering. But they are bickering over hugely consequential issues. And the two churches are the most important in the broader Orthodox Church. The Russian Church is by far the largest with a little over 1/3 of all the world's Orthodox Christian belonging to it. And the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds the canonical first place of honor within the Church. So yeah, this is a very serious situation within Eastern Christianity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply/Comment: It's also 'bickering' seemingly with potential geostrategic consequences for the war in Ukraine and the wider conflict between Russia and the West that involves the world's two nuclear superpowers. "Telling of the Orthodox Church’s role in Russian geopolitics, on 12 October Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an extraordinary meeting of the National Security and Defense Council, where the “situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine” was discussed." Who are we to decide that we are better judges than Putin as to what is and is not important in geopolitics? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to !vote yet, especially given there seem to be some factual disputes over what has/hasn't happened yet. This blurb is at least a lot more intelligible and significant-sounding than the previous nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Stephen. Larger significance not readily apparent Sca (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Incomprehensible blurb, lacks significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a rare and unusual event, the Russian Orthodox Church is perhaps the most important force in Orthodox Christianity. Article on schism has been created which should form part of the blurb. AusLondonder (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable and interesting story, and I'm indeed seeing this in the news. However, the ROC article is not fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Notability is sound and Schism of 2018 is passable as a target article. Teemu08 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a second alt blurb, identical to the first alt blurb but with schism of 2018 as the bolded link. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My problem with the first blurb and by extension the newest alt blurb is that there are three churches in Ukraine each claiming to be the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And the one that is recognized by every canonical Orthodox Church except for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has made no such request for independence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the light of your point, I've added altblurb 3, which is altblurb2 with Church replaced by Churches (tho I'm not sure this is entirely necessary). (Incidentally, the Euromaidan Press article already mentioned above by me says that 10 of the 90 bishops of the (pro-Moscow) UOC MP had also signed the appeal to Constantinople for autocephaly, which suggests there will also be some kind of split in the UOC MP, tho I'm not sure how significant that is.) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not really sure that source is particularly trustworthy. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right that it probably isn't trustworthy on some points (as incidentally is also true with all other so-called Reliable Sources, as the likes of Noam Chomsky and others have been documenting for decades, even if Chomsky and his kind aren't always particularly trustworthy either), but I'm pretty sure it's trustworthy on that particular point, since despite being anti-Moscow it admits that it's only 10 out of 90 UOC MP bishops who are pro-Ukrainian autocephaly (the conclusion that there's likely to be a split is mine, not its own). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment+Question re quality: Including Ad Orientem (who was opposed on quality but supporting on significance), I currently make it 10-3 support on significance (11-3 if we include the nom), which is normally a comfortable consensus, with at least one editor deeming the target passable on quality over 12 hours ago. I'd like to mark it Ready, but I don't normally trust myself as a judge on quality. Might some editor such as Ad Orientem now please have a look at quality, and let us know whether they now deem it ready to post, or indicate what more seems required.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Schism of 2018 looks of suitable a standard to me, with sufficient length (except the lead) and good referencing. However I can still barely understand a word of it, as it's full of unexplained jargon and seems to expect a knowledge of Orthodox churches that most of our readers don't have. Could we get a bit more context for general readers, before directing thousands of people there from the home page? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some definitions and clarifications that I think will help in the understanding of the topic. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Either Alt blurb II or III. The new target needs a little expansion, especially regards reaction from the rest of the Orthodox world, but I think it is adequate. Marking this as Ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead of the target article is inadequate as does not explain the subject to a general reader. I do not think this is ready to link to the main page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Stephen and others. The concerns raised have not been addressed, so I'm not sure why this is marked as "Ready". The blurb is essentially meaningless for someone not familiar with the situation, and not a good fit for an ITN story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support on merit, but weak oppose due to article quality. Article is pretty close, but it's not quite there yet, as there's one completely unreferenced paragraph.  When all paragraphs are appropriately sourced, please assume that my vote is a strong support. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Ready Marking as ready, as the various quality issues raised above now seem to have been addressed as far as reasonably practicable.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing Ready - Somebody added an orange flag some time after I had marked this as 'Ready' (which actually seems somewhat amusing and/or ironic (at least to me, if not necessarily to anybody else), for reasons which I've mentioned on the article's Talk page). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am the "somebody" mentioned by Tlhslobus. His edits of today have alleviated my initial reservations. We should proceed. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this specific announcement is stale. We could consider ongoing, or the new article Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018) will hopefully be ready for the next announcement (probably the Tomos issuance in November, and possibly mutual excommunications afterwards). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really stale - a number of its citations are news items dated 20th October.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ready: Marking as ready after Tlhslobus's 20 oct. contributions which have alleviated my neutrality concerns. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adelsheim. Incidentally, when flagging as Ready it's best to add (Ready) to the Section Name of the nomination too, to get it noticed, which I've now done. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Royal Baby - first child of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

 * Oppose – I don't believe we do announcements of pregnancies, do we? The actual birth would certainly be much more newsworthy. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. But will probably not prevent the creation of an article on First child of Prince Harry within the next week or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose not even sure the birth of the 7th in line is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait for delivery and suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * p.s. did I say "the next week or so"? Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Óscar Romero

 * Oppose canonisation is a routing occurrence (~50 in the last 5 years), nothing extraordinary here. Stephen 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Canonization maybe routine, but this was a major part of the civil war. Notable by the fact that it was Romero.Not to mention indicative of the direction the Church is mioving.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Was", not "is". We don't deal in yesterday's news. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, by the "direction the Church IS moving". WE do post todays news.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is it referenced that this is canonisation is a movement in a new direction? Stephen 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A footnote to R.C. church history. Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Lihaas. This is not just a routine canonisation, it represents a paradigm shift. It's a story of notable worldwide general interest which ITN promotes. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Lihass and Amakuru. In the news and the article looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Church canonises people regularly. I am not seeing a paradigm shift either, he was your average conservative cleric from a conservative country in South America who though more progressive priests and denounced liberation theology, but when the rightist repression brought his country to the brink of a civil war he - stressing that those exist on both sides - denounced people who kill thousands of innocents, he was killed by right-wing militias. Tell me please, how is this important? I am open to voting for an ITN nom when they canonise someone like Câmara, but in this case? It's not even funny. Also, the article itself is just amasingly POV, apparently it was cleansed of all critical assessments of Romero a while ago, now that it doesn't even mention his early fights in the late 60-s with the majority of the clergy that was more progressive, his participation in conservative organisations and his enduring support for the government that only ended by the mid 70-s when the civil war already began... God Dammit, what happened to Wikipedia? Why is literally everything so POV here... Openlydialectic (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very useful info, Openlydialectic. A short answer to your question would be that I suspect that everything is POV because knowledge is power, and organization and determination beat disorganized amateurism, so once Wikipedia became important its rules and practices quickly became made mainly by ideologies and other vested interests for ideologies and other vested interests, much like almost everything else in this world. But unfortunately my suspicions are inherently unprovable, and in any case this is the wrong forum for discussing this topic.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are enough gaps in referencing to preclude posting until they are fixed. Also I have to agree with Openlydialectic's complaint that the article appears to be extremely lopsided in its presentation of the subject who was, and remains a highly controversial figure. If/when these are corrected I will Support on significance. Whether or not one agrees with his far left theology (I don't), Romero was one of the most significant figures of the post Vatican II Catholic Church and is a giant in the social and political history of Latin America. Also Pope Paul VI who oversaw most of the reforms of Vatican II, some of them controversial, was canonized at the same ceremony. I have not had a chance to look at his article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that you say that you disagree with 'his far-left theology', Ad Orientem, given that Openlydialectic seems to have been saying that he was actually anything but far left, but that his conservatism has been suppressed by POV-pushers. Could either or both of you clarify this, please? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Canonization requires first the literal "intercession of the Blessed after his death." Needless to say, the intercession of the dead into the world of the living is not verifiable (at best). ghost 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So its supporters claim, but that seems irrelevant - the fact that he has been canonized is easily verifiable, even if the claimed reasons for this are not. Being Pope requires believing in a God whose existence is unverifiable, but that doesn't mean we should therefore refrain from posting the election of a new Pope (and much the same can probably be said for many other actually or allegedly unverifiable things claimed in connection with many subjects that have articles in Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support from the source this looks like a long-running historical issue that still leaves undercurrents and is still important in El Salvador (e.g. from the 60k audience listening to the pope). Banedon (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - canonisation is near routine at this stage, and not worthy of posting at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True of canonisations in general, but not necessarily true of this particular one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Yet another saint in a religion which has thousands of them. I'm struggling to think of any situation in which we should post canonisations. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A little imagination can easily come up with examples which would at least deserve serious consideration - if they were to canonize a non-Catholic (e.g Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Mandela), or some extremely controversial figure (for instance some quasi-genocidal crusade-preacher), and so on. And I'm still trying to decide whether Romero qualifies or not (tho my initial feeling was no, and it hasn't really changed yet, despite being underwhelmed by some of the NO arguments). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: added 2 possible altblurbs. These are arguably more accurate, even if they arguably also weaken the case for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Posting seems appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Taylor

 * Support Good article, so no issues. Death is sourced from two articles.  Significant topic.  p  b  p  22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just pointing at the wrong Jim Taylor... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. At least it was just the disambiguation page we reported as dead, not actually a completely different Jim Taylor. That would be embarassing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: William Coors

 * Support - when the few sentences that needs refs have been completed. should be easily done.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, oppose. Noted. ghost 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is poorly referenced, poorly phrased and poorly structured. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Half of the article is about accusations of racism. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Honestly, if an article has been tagged, then it is unworthy of being linked in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pik Botha

 * Support. Article is in good shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article needs several more references for uncited claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing issues appear to have been addressed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the referencing issues have been resolved, the article is in good shape and is very detailed about his political career, for which he was best known. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chang Chun-Yen

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No gaps in sourcing, article is well-written and not too short. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks up to scratch. Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment this has been good to go for 24 hours at least... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(Bumped up; Posted to Ongoing) Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
Comment & support blurb I've updated it into a blurb. I think it's noteworthy, seeing the media attention everywhere. Even here in Russia it's top 2 news right now. Much more importantly, and I am emphasising this as someone who's not easily outraged: Saudi diplomats kidnapped an American resident inside their own consulate in the largest European city, then proceeded to "brutally" torture him for several days, kill him, dismember him - all inside that consulate - and dispose the remains in the city. I mean, Jesus f***ing Christ. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that we need to assert that the beatings/murder are the claims of the Turkish intelligence, not proven out yet. --M asem (t) 17:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but the guy did enter the consulate 10 days ago and never went back, so something did happen to him. For analogy, the initial conclusions of the British intelligence about the Skripals did make it into the ITN. And in my honest opinion, even that act wasn't as outrageous as this one. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not saying that the Turkish Intelligence are wildly throwing accusations, just that at this point, it is their word to base it on. Don't want that asserted in WP voice. --M asem (t) 18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, because it's Turkey of course that has a history of staging false-flags, and not the UK. Openlydialectic (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * support blurb - article updated and ready. BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now. Sorry, but we need someone with more credibility than the Turkish Government to corroborate this before we post it on the main page. I suspect it's true but Turkey's current regime does not have the same credibility the UK did when it accused the Russians of nerve agent attacks on their soil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, unlike the UK-Russian situation, Turkey and Saudis actually have rather warm relations right now, as noted by multiple commentators, e.g. 1 Openlydialectic (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Saudi Arabia–Turkey relations article is severely outdated; after the Qatar game change (where Turkey sided with Qatar). However, Turkey owes quite a lot of money to the Saudis, usually very informed sources say that this will cost the Saudis a lot, but in the end they will walk away scot free (as they did in the horrible Saad Hariri affair last year), Huldra (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not the only countries affected by this; multiple US senators stated that, if confirmed, this would quote "break" ties between the two countries (though the Saudi-US relations article is in poor shape so it shouldn't be in the blurb anyways)  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Using the BBC's article, this is a developing story, since the Saudis are denying this. No body has been found, and no formal accusation has been made yet. Should that happen, that might be appropriate. --M asem (t) 18:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrible lurid blurbs. Developing speculations full of uncertainties. This is exact kind of thing that Wikipedia should not post. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will support RD as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose full of speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's much better known as a journalist, and was pro-government through most of his career till he recently fell out with Mohamed bin Salman. That's probably the first time I've seen him described as "human rights activist", to be honest. Not even the nom's sources use such words (haven't checked Daily Sabah though). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also oppose, per others (for now). This is purely speculative, unless confirmed by reliable sources and not Turkish government officials. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the above comments, this is just speculation at the moment. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the disappearance, if someone can come up with a blurb without all the hyperbole. This was big news last week. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, lets face it: if he was still alive, the Saudis would have made sure we all knew by now. But instead even Thomas Friedman is tweeting request for answers from the Saudis, (for those of you who haven't followed the issue: Friedman wrote earlier this year a panegyric article praising the Saudis, more specifically Mohammad bin Salman in the NYT.) Huldra (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not changing my vote but extra points for use of a polysyllabic word with more than six letters that I had to look up. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, thanks... But seriously, that NYT article of Friedman is one of the worst I have ever seen him written (which says a lot..) He didn't find anyone critical of the rulers (funny that, in a country where even possessing literature by a opposition member, like Madawi al-Rasheed, can get you a 15 years jail sentence. No, I am not kidding.) Friedman earned the scorn of other observers link, link. Read that NYT article, and then read his latest tweets. "Pathetic" doesn't even cover it. Huldra (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative blurb III: A week after his initial disappearance, Turkish Intelligence services conclude that prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was captured inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, and killed.  Khashoggi is far better known as a journalist than as a human rights activist (nobody would have called him a "human rights activist" just a year or two ago.) And it is, AFAIK undisputed that this is the conclusions of the Turkish Intelligence services, (minus the hyperbole) (wether or not the Turkish Intelligence services are correct, is another matter, of course), Huldra (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support With special thanks to, who made my morning with the Daffy Duck link.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD (contrary to one support for RD above) until the preponderance of Reliable Sources tell us he is dead. Neutral on some blurb about his disappearance.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The blurbs need a serious rewrite. All of them reek of editorial hyperbole.--WaltCip (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - What we've got by now is a man with a disputed fate who is said to be tortured and cut into the pieces. We're at least sure that he has disappeared and his whereabouts is still unknown. Given the Turkey's narration of the event, the astute reader will make his own guess after reading the article. So, it's not that different to have the disappearance or the murder on. --  M h hossein   talk 07:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for further developments before posting (update: new reports that Turkish authorities are in fact accusing the Saudi government, disregard parts of this !vote) I couldn't bring myself to support without a caveat. It's a very quickly developing story, and the international consequences are significant, but we should wait until either 1) the representatives of either Turkey or the United States formally accuse Saudi Arabia or 2) a sufficient amount of credible sources describe it as likely rather than just speculation. The merits of this story are absolutely worth a blurb, and it has hitherto not been unheard of for ITN to post suspected murders of journalists by governments (notably when the Russian government is involved), sometimes even before they are inevitably proven to be true. We absolutely need a better blurb, but in all fairness we can't expect a blurb that doesn't sound at least somewhat shocking when the method of execution was literally dismemberment. Aside from how the methods used are exceptionally draconian (which alone isn't enough to warrant a blurb), the international impact of this story is just as significant as the assassination of Russian journalists, as three countries (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United States) are involved. He was a Saudi citizen, US resident, and per Turkish visa laws, if this murder is confirmed it violates Turkish laws as well. Turkey already briefed the US, and several members of the US legislature from both major parties have already noted that if this murder is confirmed that it would represent a "fundamental break in our relationship with Saudi Arabia" and that they "must respond strongly." If the US or Turkey accuse Saudi Arabia, or if investigative journalists eliminate the speculation surrounding the story on their own, I will remove the caveat that we should wait. If nothing happens, this nomination will go stale. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait – Murky - developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It's actually also a RD item, he seems to have left the consulate in a diplomatic coffin. Count Iblis (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in general, but we have to be careful with the blurb. The story in itself has enormous diplomatic ramifications, and thus is clearly ITN material. --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The story has attained lots of coverage. I think any of the blurbs under consideration would be fine as-is, but I have no objection if we want to wait for further developments. Davey2116 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support major news with geopolitical implications. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait What we know at this point is that the guy is missing. Were the more salacious details true, Turkish police would have no knowledge of them. They seem to have been made up whole cloth. Story is blurb-worthy, but it should be something like "Turkey accuses..." or "Erdogon demands..." ghost 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Countries throwing accusations at one another isn't really ITN worthy. What we're probably about to see very soon, however, is two countries recalling their respective ambassadors or even severing relations. And I think we'd be good to go when that happens. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support would prefer to wait till confirmed, but it is continuing to generate news. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support with Banedon's reasoning. Perhaps the blurb can be adjusted to match what is known at the present, and if/when the situation changes, then we can change the blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Support - Major story with international implications. While much of the story is unclear, the known facts and widespread coverage make this a good ITN blurb, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This needs to be published now. Support is overwhelming. Where are the admins? --bender235 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait...What? Which nom are you reading? We don't even have a blurb yet, let alone support for one, that doesn't say "SA tortured and killed a guy." Needless to say, that cannot be posted to the MP unless we're sure. We DO have consensus that this is a big enough story for the MP. ghost 11:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that we need an on the record accusation or demand or some such, and that will be our blurb. Also, that should be nom'ed on the day it happens. Everything we "know" so far is unattributed. ghost 11:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The first alternative blurb is fine. It clearly refers to the Turkish authorities as the source of the allegations. --bender235 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This continues to develop; supposedly there's a tape now . I'm still not sure what the blurb should be though.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is time to post this. Still headline news. Plenty of reliable sources available.BabbaQ (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support lots of coverage and article is ready. This is a major incident having geopolitical implications. US and Turkish officials shared video recordings which proves Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Several news outlets and journalists drop out of Saudi conference. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose updating the blurb and bumping the nomination to today's date since this is a new development. --Tone 13:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Still looking for the blurb though...we can't attribute to Turkish sources that which they have reported anonymously to the media. There is a way to phrase this, I just can't think of it. ghost 14:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we do something like "Amidst a growing diplomatic row, SA denies allegations they killed..."? This is on the record, and doesn't require we attribute the allegations. ghost 14:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Bumped up since it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. Alternatively, one may consider Ongoing. --Tone 14:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not major international news (hasn’t reached here), though that by itself could be overlooked because of a lot of countries not being friends with Turkey. Still, it means there isn’t much widespread dissemination of reliable information. It should also definitely be put on hold because it seems like the user who turned it into a blurb is very personally invested in it being posted, to the point where they created a blurb about a horrific death before it was even confirmed that someone had died. Too much uncertainty, and it is a non-notable death on a worldwide scale (this person is not known outside of a few countries, barely known outside of one, isn't a politician, etc.) – other recent attempts to transfer a RD to a blurb for people with a bigger worldwide impact or whose death created large scale debate/effects have been denied, this guy is not up to blurb standard. The suggestion of hold is to wait for reliable confirmation of death for an RD. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is blatantly untrue. This is major news everywhere and has had continued coverage world wide since he disappeared. It is the top news on CNNtoday just to mention one source.BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please tread gently here. News websites often display content based on geography, so not everyone sees the same news headlines.  Just because you have seen it everywhere, doesn't mean everyone on the planet has. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am stating that major news sources brings this up as their top news. A Google search also provides solid facts about how this news has spread all over the world. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just opened the News app on my phone, scrolled all the way down, and it is not there. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's his individual notability that would warrant a blurb. If proven, this goes way. way beyond what's normally posted at ordinary RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In comparison, the Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar is posted below as an RD, even though TIME reports that the Venezuelan parliament has said he was tortured and murdered whilst in police custody within his own area. Should both get blurbs, then? Kingsif (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - article also claims he was dismembered in the consulate: "One anonymous police source claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate and all of this was "videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 *   Still way too iffy to post. Note that according to the BBC, the Turkish government "has agreed to a joint investigation with the Saudis, and a Saudi delegation arrived in Turkey on Friday to take part in talks expected over the weekend." Perhaps some solid info will come from that – but it may take a long time for any reliable confirmation of what happened appears. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb3 which I have just added. ghost 16:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That blurb is reliable and accurate, but does it sound like it’s worthy of an ITN to you? For me, even if all speculation turned out to be correct, it’s not groundbreaking that a repressive country tortured someone who vocally disagrees with them. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * → Yeah, "reported missing" doesn't cut the mustard. Sca (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That blurb does not reflect what is reliably reported. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * really? I just looked at the links I can access and the only certainty is that he didn’t return from the embassy, everything else, including his death is speculation. Sometimes speculation is overwhelmingly reliable, and it wouldn’t be surprising if it were true, but the only blurbs we could use are “he’s missing” and “people say he was killed”. BLP would mean that the entire tone would have to be neutral, which means that unless you’re a significant person or in an interesting situation “sources say he was tortured and murdered” isn’t a fascinating story. Kingsif (talk)


 * To reiterate Tone's point, it seems that we will have a consensus to post "something" here, though the blurb is still being debated. If you agree that this should be posted, help write a blurb we can actually post. I would argue that the blurb itself does not have to "sound" ITN worthy if the underlying story is, but the blurb must be brief and accurate. ghost 17:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - On further consideration, I think we have to be careful not to become the victim of sensationalism here. The fate of the subject in question is still a relative unknown, and BLP applies here just as it does everywhere else on the Wikipedia. We can't post a news story without reliable sources to back it up. Altblurb3 is not especially newsworthy-sounding either. Long story short, this doesn't fit the ethos of what would normally be posted to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This might have big consequences if it is confirmed . However, WP:NOTSCANDAL. w umbolo   ^^^  18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality only; the "disappearance" section suffers from major WP:proseline issues. If someone who cares about posting this could fix that up, I'd remove my opposal.  Prefer altblurb3 when the prose problems are cleaned up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, altblurb 3 is relatively better than the ones before it in terms of NPOV. But, as I already mentioned earlier, Khashoggi had been close to the Saudi establishment for as long as I can remember, and supported most of its policies. So describing him as a "prominent critic" seems to fail WP:RECENTISM. Can't we just stick to "journalist"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, it's not ever day that a person gets killed and sawed up in a consulate with audiotape available. And this was done knowing full well that they'd get caught. The Saudis are sending a message. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't need to, that's what reliable secondary sources are saying. It doesn't matter if it is provable, what matters for ITN posting is the level of worldwide interest by the media in the story. This is a huge story.  Abductive  (reasoning) 15:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per above and the problem that the linked article has issues with prose. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 01:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose .......anything but a statement that this man has disappeared. Wikipedia far too often gets involved in international propaganda games. Even writing what one organisation claims would be doing just that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just "one organisation"? António Guterres seems to have quite a strong interest in this matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Abductive. Lepricavark (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Kashogi's disappearance received massive media coverage from all across the world and we can post a journalist's disappearance in ITN but adding Turkish authorities' claim'll make it a conjecture.Amir (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this should be posted now. My earlier opposition- and that of many- was for RD which is now justified, since till now nobody is certain he's dead. Besides that, this clearly received and still is receiving wide global coverage. Many major news outlets at least run more than two stories and analyses on this; particularly UK's Guardian, CNN and AlJazeera. This is the time to post this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. No matter how much speculative coverage erupts, "reported missing" is not ITN-worthy. As they say on crime shows, "Where's the body?" Sca (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No longer in one piece, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This template is for adding things that are in the news not things that are true and this story is "in the news" by any measure. Whether it's speculative or not that doesn't matter to Wikipedia. It's also not mere ordinary person that's missing, as you're trying to suggest, it's an influential figure, so influential that it's capable of causing this besides leading to avalanche of narratives from all mainstream media that have true wide international audience. It is when we post RD that we go wrong, because it means we come to an independent original conclusion on his status, and that's what I opposed initially.–Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alt 3. This is a major international news story with very substantial coverage and likely political repercussions.  The blurb can be updated as the story develops, but Alt3 is OK for the time being.  This is a far more important and "in the news" story than "Two astronauts don't die".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The preceding arguments merit consideration, but if the info currently extant is all that ever comes out, it'll never be proven. (If the Saudis were to officially declare him dead, that would be enough for ITN.) Also, IMO, the Khashoggi article exudes a somewhat POV tone, though it's muted. Sca (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Absent from versions of ITN on French, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and Russian Wikipedia. Sca (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonplussed. When did posting on ITNs of French, German and whatnot wikipedias become a benchmark for posting on English Wikipedia?. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, Ammarpad. Of course, as is well known, the French, Germans, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes and Russians all lack intelligence and are devoid of good judgment in all things. Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Too right. Here's one of those Dutch whatnots for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The ITN sections of those Wikipedias usually provide a very good barometer of what not to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just cheap Eurotrash. Martinevangelista123 (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In this particular instance the Rambler is right: Those Wikis' unanimous guidance is  not  to post the lurid, unconfirmed Khashoggi tale on ITN – at least not now. – Sca (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Two astronauts don't die" was posted per ITNR. This story, provided it met quality requirements, would also be posted if ITNR said something like "Missing persons alleged to have been murdered are ITNR if they wrote columns for the Washington Post", but it doesn't (just pointing this out as "2 astronauts don't die" got mentioned above, tho I actually currently couldn't care less whether this item gets posted or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Close? Could some uninvolved admin perhaps have a look to see whether this needs closing due to lack of realistic prospects for consensus, please? I'm neutral on whether it deserves posting. But I make it about 19 for to 15 against, so it's well short of a 2:1 supermajority (our typical consensus criterion). 3 of its 4 suggested blurbs are unusable speculation. It will be entering its 8th day in a few hours from now, and will presumably be distracting editors from more productive work for about another week if it isn't closed (assuming its bumping-up is allowed to stand). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alt Blurb III looks fine to me. But relieved it would only be for another week or so. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb as significant story. However, chances for concensus appear distant given 20:15 ratio and most if not all of likely participants have already added their two cents worth. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did we somehow count it differently? I just did a recount, and I've counted 23 support votes and 13 oppose votes. Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This thing should have expired off, not been "bumped up". Time to die. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not today Openlydialectic (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, Altblurb III. A significant story that is still very much in the news and is having a significant international impact. Just today there is an article in NYT about the effect of the story on the upcoming “Davos in the Desert” meeting, and on how various countries and businesses/companies are changing their approach to Saudi Arabia. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the vote tally is 23-13 in favour of posting, and that's not counting the initial wait that can now arguably be interpreted as votes in support Openlydialectic (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some curious counting discrepancies going on here! Someone just a few post above made it 19 v 15 against...!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this should be posted as ongoing instead of a blurb. The fact that he disappeared is now stale while the political story is developing on a daily basis. --Tone 08:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's still on the main page of the global BBC News site and the various items of fallout are now of direct interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree too. That's what I meant in my above comment as frankly speaking this issue have more coverage than all the extant stale stories on the ITN template. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing - OK, given the rough consensus both of the vote tally and the comments immediately above this one, I've posted to Ongoing, with the caption Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. If anyone thinks this is a misreading of the consensus, or that this is controversial, please let me know and I'll leave it for someone else to determine. (I think I annoyed enough people with my premature posting of Kavanaugh so don't want to cause any more controversy!) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PP comment – Yes, Ongoing makes sense given continued peripheral and reaction stories. (Three sources added above.) Sca (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: At the barbershop Saturday morning, the top conversation topic was Khashoggi. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment we're featuring an orange tagged article which cites "anonymous sources" claiming the victim was hacked to bits? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tons of coverage in the news. Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's patently untrue. It cites reliable sources that cited "anonymous sources". I am not aware of any Wikipedia article that cites "anonymous sources", please if you know any please show it to me and the template used since cite anonymous doesn't exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is, coverage continues – AP, Guardian, Reuters – ∴ Ongoing. – Sca (talk)
 * I'm not questioning the coverage, I'm questioning featuring an orange tagged article (removing the tag w/o resolving the issues doesn't count) with reliable sources citing anonymous sources that the alleged victim was hacked to pieces. Compare to the collective loss of shit when 100s of witnesses and actual video existed of an exploding drone attack in Caracas. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d recommend especially looking at that - blurb 4 there is certainly ITN worthy (8 people are injured in explosions that occurred during a Presidential speech) but because there was a lot of people reasonably saying "but if we post the news then we’re endorsing the official Maduro story, and we don’t know if that’s true" it got closed for no consensus. It’s comparable to this level of speculation and propaganda warring. And, on the topic, one politician arrested for the explosions died last week, with several countries (USA, UK, France, Spain, all of South America) saying they have reason to believe he was tortured and murdered by the Venezuelan state, which has reliable sources. Out of the two, which seems better fitting of ITN criteria? Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This story is considerably more ITN than that one, which is an important criteria. As a rule, we *trust* reliable sources, so we can repeat what they say in WP's voice. RS's are not saying he was chopped up, but RS's are saying that US/Turkish intelligence is saying that. As long as we are clear on that distinct, it's fine. The story here is not that he was murdered, but that important people are SAYING he was...people who would not benefit from saying lying about it. ghost 17:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "More ITN" or less or whatever I don't care, I just want stories which are "In the news" to be posted - so long as the article is good enough. Reliable sources published claims of sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh and Harvey Weinstein and the loss of shit was so spectacular that it transcended space and time. This article is not very high quality, and pushes the unverified claims that this guy was hacked to bits. Hell, we refused to post the disappearance of the head of INTERPOL until he turned up as a prisoner of the CPC. Rather silly I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it "pushes" that claim. It includes it as it has been so widely reported. The source was anonymous, the article says that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Ongoing. Continuing to remain in the news, and the article is still receiving adequate updates.  Spencer T• C 19:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate
Newest autocephalous Eastern Orthodox church. Reuters 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? From what I can understand they were explicitly NOT granted an autocephaly just yet. The ecumential patriarch just rescinded the anathema from the head of this church. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.rferl.org/a/constantinople-patriarchate-agrees-to-recognize-independence-of-ukrainian-orthodox-church/29538590.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting unusual news on ITN. Ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question For those of us who aren't versed in Orthodox theology, could you explain what the news is here? I tried reading the article but it's almost unintelligible to outsiders, as is the blurb. Certainly neither are in a postable state. The Reuters story suggests this is de jure approval for their existing de facto separate church; am I reading that correctly? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this basically grants independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, from the Russian Orthodox Church. Prior to this, there had been two independent Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, but they were not recognized by the world Orthodox churches because Ukraine was viewed as the territory of the Russian Orthodox Church.  So this move grants recognition to the two Ukrainian churches, thus repudiating the Russian Orthodox Church's claim over Ukrainian territory. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC))


 * Weak oppose – Per Modest Genius. Not accessible to most non-Orthodox English-speaking readers. Could be rewritten to make it more readily intelligible. Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle, oppose on quality - Added an article frm the Atlantic that explains this a bit more - this is all tied to the Urkaine's separation from Russia, and while maybe political boundaries were already that way, the Orthodox churches in the Ukraine were still tied to the Russia Orthodox - and any of Russia's political activities that filtered through it. The autocephaly further breaks Ukraine from Russia. Unfortunately, this stuff needs to be emphasized more in the UOC article to make it clear why this is significant news related to Russia-Ukraine relationships. --M asem (t) 14:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Both blurbs, and the article are factually inaccurate. Bart has NOT granted autocephaly to the UOCKP. What he has done is to establish sacramental communion with them (something no other canonical Orthodox church has done), assert a claim to jurisdiction over Ukraine which he claims always belonged to Constantinople and was simply on loan to Russia, and declare his intention to grant autocephaly at some point (presumably in the near future). This is all extremely complicated and very controversial. I am going to need to work on the article as there are some rather glaring factual errors. Once the tomos of autocephaly is granted, which is expected to precipitate a serious schism within the Orthodox Church, and presuming the article is up to scratch, I will support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Even after reading the article someone unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the politics of Orthodox churches will be left scratching their heads about (a) what on earth this is all about, and (b) why it is significant - and based on Ad Orientem's comments I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant ITN anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest this be closed for now as the nomination was premature. Once the tomos is actually issued, and assuming article quality is up to scratch, this will be an important story worth posting. I expect a major schism within the world's second largest Christian denomination. But for now, none of this has actually happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; orange-level tag at top. There's a current dispute over the article text being worked out on the talk page; we need to make sure the article text is correct before posting.  Once that dispute has amicably been resolved, would have no problem posting this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, schisms of this scale are one in a millennium, is spite of all the oppose notvoters here who are obviously wallowing in ignorance. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The factual accuracy of the article is in dispute. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly on quality of article and lack of clarity as to the precise circumstances surrounding the separation. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Questions (especially for Ad Orientem, who seems to be an expert on such matters). Regardless of the misleading current blurbs about autocephaly (which in any case are not about a new decision but merely a 'renewed' one, and are also merely about an intention that cannot be implemented in practice just yet), and regardless of fixable article quality issues, is the rescinding of the 1686 letter that conceded the right of the Moscow Patriarch to anoint the Metropolitan of Kiev (subject to various terms and conditions) not a once-in-over-300-years notable event, and if so should that not of itself be grounds to support posting in principle, and if not, then why not? Also does the current lack of overt support from other (slightly less exalted) Patriarchs make this non-notable or merely less notable? And does the current de facto independence of two Ukrainian Orthodox churches make Bart's recognition helpful in theory but a little bit academic and non-notable in practice (except perhaps for his rescinding of their excommunication)? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tlhslobus, an argument could be made to that effect, especially if this were a stand alone event. But it is actually part of an ongoing slow motion train wreck within the Orthodox Church that is likely to reach the breaking point when the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) issues a document called a tomos of autocephaly to one or more hitherto non-canonical Orthodox churches in Ukraine. When that happens the Russian Orthodox Church, currently claiming about 1/3 of the world's Orthodox faithful, is all but certain to break communion with the EP. That has the potential to become the most serious schism in church history since the split between the Christian East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). In other words we are in the middle of an unfolding ecclesial disaster that is probably going to get much worse. If there was a consensus to post this development, I think it would have to be qualified by noting that the EP's claim of jurisdiction over Ukraine is not currently recognized by any other canonical church. My gut says to wait for the big event, which is coming (though it breaks my heart). I would say that the lack of support from the other canonical churches would tend to make this less important, but again, only because everyone is holding their breath waiting for the big smash up. Ultimately whether or not Bart actually has the canonical authority to do any of this is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the Orthosphere right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful clarification. I will now oppose below. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem's above clarification.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO above, and encourage renomination for future major events.  Spencer T• C 19:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leif Axmyr

 * Support RD. Sweden's longest serving prisoner, very notable case as he viciously killed the son of an influential politician. --Bruzaholm (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Ellis
Fix the issues brought up bt TRM and I'd support happily. Deadly Doug's dead. Quite a tongue-twister. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a handful of unreferenced claims in there. Plus, some odd stuff going on with some of those references... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up a few of them here and there. Not sure how much is required for it to be signed off. Also not sure why I'm spending time on this one as a Coventry City supporter who's not too keen on Villa, but there we go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you're a good Wikipedian. I often spend time on budgie-related articles and  is usually keen to help me improve any Tractor Boy material.  It's one of the good things here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He he, budgies and tractor boys. At least you guys always have each other to hate though... Coventry tend not to have fixed rivals because nobody cares enough to hate us back. We switched our main rivalry from Villa to Leicester for a while after relegation, but then we rather went our separate ways as we went to League 2 while they won the premier league. As you say though, we're all on the same team when it comes to being Wikipedians. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Coventry fans can hate Discworld, the premise of which mocks your club's crest. The world is, of course, balanced on the backs of four elephants which in turn stand on the back of a giant FOOTBALL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think that's pretty much all sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's a huge Darren Huckerby support from me, Amakuru. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * * "Run, Hucks, Run!" (byline approaches at high speed) "Cross it now!" (ball goes out of play) "Sigh...". Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm, ahem. If Messi or Ronaldo did that, people wouldn't stop talking about how brilliant it was. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! Them were the days... True legend. Unlike Craig Bellamy, you can keep him, I think he actually did a decent job for you guys. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem is I'm a Leeds fan. He only did things like that against us, not for us. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - decent. good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I did support this, but it's been marked ready for 10 hours now with no opposition - so posting. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Soyuz MS-10

 * I *think* this possibly qualifies under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks ITNR to me - it seems to satisfy every part of: "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose the article is barely above stub, contains some unreferenced material, but the incident is highly notable. Blurb needs rework into a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. I support this in principle, but very few details are available yet and the article has little more information than the blurb. Once multiple paragraphs of referenced prose can be written about the event it will be worth posting (though the blurb could do with some work). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – Interesting and dramatic but lacks general significance. Also, at this juncture few details seem to be available. Sca (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ITNR though. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I failed to notice that. Well, arguably this rescue seems close to unique and thus in a slightly different category than those listed there. Sca (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. interesting, dramatic, has broader implications.  So I think it should [eventually] be run, but it needs to ripen.  Short article with few sources.  Let it develop.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait article isn't quite ready yet. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support between now and an investigation, it says everything that can be said. Not often a space craft aborts and returns to earth like that. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support while further improvements are sure to come, the article seems to be ready, also, one of a few space craft disasters that happen above the ground and yet result in zero fatalities or even injuries Openlydialectic (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. First instance of a manned booster accident at high altitude in 43 years. May have implications for the future of the ISS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, good work everyone. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blurb needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest a better blurb and I'll post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - second sentence could be dropped if desired. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Note that the launch was from Baikonur. --Tone 20:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PP comment – "... with both crew members surviving emergency landing" should be "with both crew members surviving an emergency landing." Sca (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Arbitrary WP:ENGVAR distinction, does not need to be changed between to equivalent phrasings neither of which is more "correct" than the other.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Death of Fernando Albán Salazar

 * Wait We don't need a deluge of opposes; article is clearly in no shape to post. Let's assume nominator is just looking for contributors. ghost 11:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose sub-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, there's the rub. Sca (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Page is clearly in no shape, and I moved to Death of Fernando Albán as an article that could be posted to ITN if it is cleaned up quickly Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment has expanded and improved the article a lot, among other editors. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the page now is good enough to be posted. Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Possible blurb? There is a journalist not even confirmed dead supposedly tortured and killed in an embassy, and Albán’s situation is definitely more notable than that. A blurb would be something like "Venezuelan politician Fernando Albán Salazar dies while in secret service custody in Venezuela; multiple nations, including his own, publicly announce the belief that he was tortured and murdered by intelligence officers under instruction from Venezuelan President Maduro" Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate this under a blurb because I don't know if it has received enough coverage. In any case I think it is noteworthy enough to be posted at least as a RD. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve bumped it to blurb, this has been a headline in, just from the reference list, every reliable well-known British and American paper and at least twice on the BBC, which is definitely an ITN blurb level. And as said, it’s more of an interesting (and awful) story than the journalist speculation above, which seems to be leaning towards getting a blurb, so precedent would give this one, too. Kingsif (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD - article has been expanded and sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I applaud the contributors who improved the article, but the blurb should probably bold it. The nature of this story is similar to the Saudi journalist story above, so I am likely to support on merits as soon as I get a chance to read more about it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD Venezuelan authorities say it was a suicide, so of course he was murdered and fed to Chavez's dog right? RD is fine, article looks good. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support at least RD It's certainly good enough for an RD. I'm neutral on the blurb only because I haven't had time to read up on it. ghost 11:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if it's not stale, there seems to be consensus to post this to RD at least. Article looks ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD it's just fine for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are four RDs currently listed, the oldest also being from the 11th(as this one is). Who do I bump off? 331dot (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The one which has been posted the longest. Unless two were posted simultaneously.  In which case just bump the last one listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm posting this to RD, discussion of a blurb can continue. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Would it be more relevant to say that Albán is Colombian, because of the fighting between the countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.43 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tex Winter

 * Oppose. Article is sparsely referenced. His head coaching record in particular has no references at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has issues with both its citations and its lead section. It is simply unworthy of being on the Main Page. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted) Hurricane Michael

 * Support article is up to date and impact is clearly enough to justify ITN posting; blurb will need updating once damage is clearer. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - This ain't your typical nor'easter (to use the vernacular). Even if we don't get crystal-balley about the extent of the damage, it's still one of the largest to hit the Southeastern U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the hurricanes of 1992, 1969 and 1935 have exceeded 150 mph in the 50 states (or territories that later became states). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The third-most intense Atlantic hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States is a big deal. Plus there are already at least 13 deaths attributed to the system. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Major storm and article looks good.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose maintenance tagged right now, and no indication in the blurb as to its impact thus far. Y'all may think it "goes without saying" but it really doesn't.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It really does.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have WP:ITNR rules for natural disasters, for reasons that I hope don't need to be said. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All maintenance tags appear to have been resolved. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that none of the factoids are in the blurb. Get the blurb right please.  Oh, and I don't understand what ITNR has to do with this at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. "Third-strongest hurricane to hit Florida" is trivia that shouldn't be in the blurb.  Location and strength are in the blurb and article; it's too soon to have initial death/damage estimates in the US.  I'm not opposed to "after causing 12 deaths in Central America" in the blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's convenient because I don't follow you either, ITNR?? The blurb just says there's a storm that's made landfall.  That is certainly not the news story here.  The destructiveness of the storm, or the casualties, or the $bn damage, etc etc, that's the story.  See below, we need some indication of effect here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned ITNR because it seemed you were opposing based on the theory that this wasn't significant enough, rather than because the blurb is incomplete. I continue to feel that your "goes without saying" assessment is accurate regarding significance. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't follow what relevance ITNR has, even if I was opposing it on significance, that's not making any sense. It doesn't go without saying, my assessment was the opposite to what you just said, anything else to confuse things???  However, if we adjust the blurb and now the maintenance tag has been addressed (or at least just removed), then we might be getting somewhere.  Wow, talk about mountains from molehills... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just ignore this. DoctorSpeed <b style="color:red">Want to talk?</b> 20:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - major hurricane very much in the news right now. -Zanhe (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - major hurricane, third most powerful to hit Florida, many deaths. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but I would suggest changing or adding to the blurb to indicate the destruction it has already caused, which is itself newsworthy, as opposed to the damage it might cause. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
 * I agree. Jusdafax (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The opposer fails to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who said "the opposer" was trying to "convince"? At least "the opposer" offered some quantitative opinion and looked at the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the real outstanding question is whether something needs to be added to the lead now before posting; it's clear that this will be posted in the next 24 hours. I don't support using numbers based on speculation like (US$13-19 billion) and  (up to US$30 billion). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What about referring to fatalities? Something like Hurricane Michael causes 13 fatalities in Central America?  Someone who is strong at English composition could find a way to attach that to the current blurb. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
 * The altblurb now presented fits the bill, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait – As with most storm stories, the landfall is just the beginning. Developing. Sca (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Note that the third and fourth words in the article are "is currently." Premature for ITN (and unencyclopedic). Sca (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait because it's just made landfall. Think we can find something to blurb other than death toll? Wind speed record or something? It's gotten grim reading "X disaster happens killing at least Y people" --LaserLegs (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Like 3rd lowest pressure and 4th fastest wind in US history? Most intense US hurricane since 1992? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

- Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support post now and update the blurb as the situation develops. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted alt-blurb – clear consensus to post, Central America included for more inclusive/complete coverage. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on blurb - Until the news is clearer, I suggest the current front page blurb should stand (ie. without the specific city, which is meaningless to most non-U.S. readers). However, I would also suggest adding the following words to the current front page blurb:
 * "a historic" in front of "landfall" (first ever of that strength within recorded history in that part of the U.S. South)
 * "the Florida Panhandle" replacing "Florida" (this is the historic part of the landfall, other parts of Florida previously saw Hurricane Andrew)
 * "strong" in front of "Category 4 storm" (2 mph short of Category 5).
 * No, just stick to NPOV facts, so per the BBC, it's the third-strongest storm to hit the US mainland. Only two fatalities there so far, far fewer than the limo accident.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (laugh) -- you really consider the above facts to NOT be NPOV? ... which btw are all already referenced in the article. Since you always carefully check article citations -- some of which have said all of the above verbatim -- I really did assume this part did not need to be said (e.g. ref 31: "Why Hurricane Michael's Landfall Is Historic"). But since UK references are still missing, I provide you the following:
 * The Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/10/hurricane-michael-threatens-florida-150mph-winds-live/
 * The Independent - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hurricane-michael-landfall-florida-panhandle-rick-scott-storm-shelter-georgia-alabama-a8578206.html
 * The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/hurricane-michael-florida-panhandle
 * The Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hurricane-michael-threatens-devastation-in-florida-l7ns6clkk
 * And oh yes, the BBC - "Storm Michael: Record-breaking 'hell' storm mauls US" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45818960 -- although the coverage is not what I normally expect of the BBC. Possibly (POV) we are seeing the effects of the financial cutbacks to their news department (NPOV)?
 * I do notice that "The Daily Mirror" and "The Express" have both skimped on their non-picture coverage of a non-Brexit hurricane and seem not to have gotten around to mentioning those facts yet. Perhaps (POV) they follow the "major news = # of deaths" criterion which has repeatedly been opposed here at ITN?
 * Disclaimer:The above post has been made by someone who vividly remembers Hurricane Andrew - which, yes, was stronger at landfall (with results you can imagine), but whose subsequent path followed a much more hurricane-hardened zone. This is why the "historic" is relevant to this blurb.
 * - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All very interesting, but we'll stick with the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Every one of the words I suggested ("historic", "Florida Panhandle", and "strong") is fact, both NPOV and referenced in the article. I am sure you know this much better than you just indicated, since you always check page citations for ITN articles. However, if you prefer, we could substitute the BBC's "record-breaking" for "strong". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I just indicated that there is no necessity to bolster the blurb, it's perfectly apt. Once the predicted billions of dollars of damage and masses of deaths occur, then we can update accordingly.  Of course, this is not the location to start attempting to modify items that are already on the main page, you know that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How ironic coming from you, considering how many times you have told others on the front (talk) page that any proposed changes should be taken to ITN. As to "apt", my proposals are no less "apt" than the status quo. However, those small additions also clarify the uniqueness of this hurricane, which the current blurb does not. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even me. No need to start personalising things now is there?  Very coarse.  The blurb doesn't need clarification in the manner you have suggested, that's for tabloids and sensationalism.  We'll stick with facts, of course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious that the BBC uses the exact same language as I propose. Do you consider the BBC a tabloid? And, again, again, again - what I propose IS fact, both (repeatedly) cited and NPOV. Please stop implying that it is otherwise. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb already says exactly what it needs to say. There is no need to inject terms designed to generate hysteria, point of view, peacock terms etc.  This is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia, where we stick to the facts, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To keep insisting that the recommended changes are not facts but hyperbole, ignoring all NPOV evidence to the contrary, is starting to verge on personal attack on me. You have a right to your opinion; but at this particular moment, in your determination to ignore every bit of NPOV evidence I have provided, your opinion is no longer fact-based. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the only individual personalising this is you. My opinion is solid.  Besides, the blurb is only a synopsis to enable people to find the article they're looking for.  And that's already been very satisfactorily achieved.  Oh, and it can't be a "personal" attack on an IP which can be used by anyone and everyone!  Feel free to log-in and start some drama at ANI though, it won't take long to resolve I'm certain!  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (laugh) Oy, the logic holes in that last post! But truth be known, I have very little interest in attempted external alteration of fixed opinion. For one thing, it never works. The only reason I have posted in this thread at all is because this is one time I could improve something beyond the merely adequate, and because I happen to think that the additions are relevant. Here and elsewhere you have already stated your opinion, which is otherwise. Be it so. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you done yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By all means have the last word. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redux: I suggest that the front page blurb be changed to "Hurricane Michael makes landfall in the Florida Panhandle, United States, as a record-breaking Category 4 storm, after causing at least 13 deaths in Central America." (For the purpose of clarity here, proposed changes only are shown in bold. I substituted record-breaking for strong, per TRM's preferred reference. I also dropped historic since that is already implied by record-breaking.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, because you'll need to explain what "record" it's "breaking". No need at all for this.  Plus, as explained before, this is not the location to discuss issues which need to be addressed on the main page.  Stick to the bare facts, don't use journalese, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Change blurb as per Tenebris. It is indeed record-breaking.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would wonder if "Florida panhandle" would be understood by non-US readers better than a specific location. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is that concern, since "Florida Panhandle" is somewhat of a geographical colloquialism rather than an actual denoted location on the map. I'd suggest "Southeastern U.S." personally.--WaltCip (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * International sources use "Florida Panhandle". But in what way is it "indeed record-breaking"?  Biggest storm with fewest casualties?  Biggest storm ever?  Biggest storm to make landfall in Florida?  Biggest storm to nearly be a cat 5 storm?  Most commented on storm at ITNC?  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Caribbean_Sea_Gulf_of_Mexico_shaded_relief_bathymetry_land_map.png
 * Highest mph's and lowest pressures in the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, a very hurricane-prone coast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near that last. Katrina had far more comments! As to the rest, you have the links, both in-article and those I provided above. The blurb has never been meant to give all the information, just key information. (Otherwise it would be an article.) Thankfully it is highly unlikely that death toll will be among those records, although it is sure to rise as news slowly gets out of the worst-hit areas. (Electricity and many roads there are out and will stay out for some time to come, which means that communication with the region will be slow in coming.) Personally, I consider the storm's most relevant record to be that it is the strongest Atlantic basin storm to make landfall in October anywhere in the Atlantic basin (including Central America and the Caribbean). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing for clarity - strongest at an October landfall. Of course, while the record is NPOV, the relevance of said record is entirely POV. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You simply can't say "record-breaking" without defining to the majority of our readers who don't appear to be in the same privileged position as you and other US contributors what that record is. As I said before, y'all may think it goes without saying, but it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "you and other US contributors" -- not a U.S. resident nor a U.S. citizen, thank you. I have mentioned that to you once or twice before. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "record breaking" would need to be defined, and I think doing so would make the blurb too unwieldy. If "panhandle" is used in international sources, I guess that would be okay, but Southeast US would be better, I think. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article explicitly mentions several cited records this hurricane has broken, and even has a separate section entitled "Records". If consensus wants more, it can be easily shifted into the blurb without becoming too unwieldy. (I will wait to do so until consensus forms.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These are not needed in the blurb, and to try to crowbar them in would make an already lengthy blurb even more unwieldy. Completely unnecessary.  And honestly, no-one outside this microcosm cares about "strongest October landfall"...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The global warming / climate change debaters would differ. Based on the relevant WP talk pages and dispute pages, there do seem to be an awful of those. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. But it's certainly too clunky for our general readership who either (a) don't care about such records or (b) can't make this "global warming" leap of faith from an October record to the heat death of the world or (c) both.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I at any point say that the hurricane's record or the article either proved or disproved global warming? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I??! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "our general readership who ... can't make this "global warming" leap of faith from an October record to the heat death of the world". This sentence explicitly associates "global warming" with "leap of faith" and with "October record". (Only one October record has been mentioned throughout this discussion -- if not referencing that one, then the statement has no relevance whatsoever to this conversational thread.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you missed the point again, the leap of faith was that our general readership would read about this contrived intersection of events and then conclude that it was global warming. Honestly, I can't keep explaining everything to you time and again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise for being so ignorant before your brilliance. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, apology accepted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This posting is just to show how short such a blurb could be -
 * "Category 4 Hurricane Michael strikes the Florida Panhandle as the strongest ever October hurricane at landfall in the Atlantic basin."

Personally, I prefer the previous (redux) version. Let the readers click through to discover what the records are. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, once again you're removing the effect of the hurricane which is far more important than some arbitrary intersection of categories to create a record. This is meaningless to most people, and who cares?  What people do care about is what this hurricane is doing, who and what it's destroying, not that it happens to be a bit gustier in a certain month of the year in a certain region at a certain point in its lifecycle.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I preferred the redux version; and I could also easily redo this one based on whatever encyclopaedic consensus decides is most important. The information in both versions is factual, cited, and verifiable. However, insisting that effects are more important than historical uniqueness is definitely POV. Myself, I will go with whatever consensus decides. You by yourself TRM are not consensus, no matter how often or vehemently you post your opinions. Neither am I. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't follow why you continually need to personalise this?  The hook is just fine, no matter how often or vehemently you post your IP-based opinions, whoever you are. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You insist the hook is fine as is. I suggest that the additions of the redux would improve it. This in itself is nothing more than a difference of opinion over which points are relevant to present in a hook; or, from another point of view, a difference of opinion over keeping the status quo vs potentially improving it. However, you have also repeatedly been implying that my suggestions are not based on fact, at the exact same time as you present your own opinions as fact. You have insisted that those records have no relevance, even when both article and your preferred source explicitly say otherwise. Specifically to my proposed additions in the redux (see bolded section above), you have stated "There is no need to inject terms designed to generate hysteria, point of view, peacock terms etc." By way of stepping back, I make explicit mention of going with whatever consensus determines, since neither you nor I are consensus in and of ourselves, notwithstanding how often or vehemently we post our opinions. (Better?) You have now mocked me for being an IP ("IP-based opinion"), as though that somehow had a bearing on its validity. And you are saying that I am personalising this? - Tenebris (whoever I am (laugh)) 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Record-breaking" would be pure hype. And BTW, as a post-posting comment, this Category 4 storm has reportedly caused a total of two deaths in the U.S., whence much of the pre-landfall hullabaloo emanated. It's very inconvenient for people in its path, but seems not to pose a major humanitarian disaster. Sca (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The original adjective was strong. I only substituted record-breaking on the basis of TRM's BBC recommendation, since that is what they used in their article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who you are, or why you insist on using IP addresses when you sign "your" name. Neither "strong" nor "record-breaking" (without explanation) is required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained the IP part in the past, repeatedly. For now, to be brief, I say merely that WP's third and fourth pillar do not differentiate between registered users and IPs. I choose to be an IP in part to bring to light those places where those pillars are flaunted. I sign a name to talk page comments to accept my personal responsibility for what I write. The name I sign to these posts is every bit as valid as any username, and the open presence of my IP makes me somewhat less openly anonymous than most members. (/end sidetrack)


 * As to the part specifically relevant to this debate, what is and is not required in a blurb is a matter of opinion. No single term in the existing blurb completely "goes without saying". (For example, more than half of the English-speaking world does not think of cyclones in terms of "category 4" etc.) Yet at the same time, a blurb cannot and should not explain each and every part of itself. (That is what the article is for, and subsequent links from that article.) Each of us draws a line as to how much internal explanation we think is warranted. You have made your opinion clear as to where that line should be drawn. So have I. Given that neither of us will be making an autonomous final decision, what more need be said? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The blurb is already sufficient, it picked up 120,000+ hits yesterday, it's not even on the BBC homepage right now, this is a dead duck. I'm glad that I've been doing other things to improve Wikipedia while this has been going on.  And on.  And on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raye Montague

 * Support. Prose size is on the short size, but definitely more than a stub, and I don't see any obvious sourcing issues. Should be good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to be postedBabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support agree, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018

 * Oppose for now due to insufficient prose describing the results and their impact. The entirety of "results" section is a table with no prose text at all.  Fix that, and the article would be good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I will get going on this within an hour or two. Hoping it's found notable on principle though. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article accordingly. Let me know if it's sufficient for you to change your vote. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine now. Subject is a current event being covered by appropriate sources, and article is sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't necessarily oppose this, but in my experience referendums that preserve the status quo don't usually get posted. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on principle I find constitutional referendums to be notable just as elections are; even if the proposition is rejected, as it was here, general elections don't become less important because their outcome is the re-election of the ruling party. In this case, there was a notable opposition to the referendum, and four out of five eligible voters didn't participate; for the boycotts to be larger than the referendum itself is significant. If another EU member state had a referendum to leave the union but the voters chose to remain, I'd find that blurbworthy as well. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but deciding to not leave an international organization and deciding not to change one's own constitution are different things. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a fair response as the former example would have more international significance, but even if it is viewed as a wholly domestic decision, I'd still regard that as the equivalent of re-electing the same leadership. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Brendon's point is well taken, but its a false equivalency. Take POTUS -- Trump's term of office ends on 1/20/2021. If the status quo holds and there is no election, he would not just continue being president on 1/21. So if he is reelected, that would be a (notable) change to the status quo. A rejected referendum has the exact effect of a referendum having never been held. Now, there may be significant consequences of a reject that make in ITN-worthy, but the vote itself is not notable per se. ghost 16:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why aren't the consequences of the successful boycott significant enough to be ITN-worthy? What makes it especially notable is that it failed due to a widespread boycott effort. No, rejected referenda are not inherently notable, but the consequences of such a boycott effort being successful makes it ITN-worthy. It reflects a major victory for LGBT rights campaigners and LGBT rights in general in Romania. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've updated the article to include more prose in the 'results' section, as well as added a 'reactions' section. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - It's a big deal, considering that this was ever proposed to begin with.--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a few CN's, didn't check the Romanian refs because nothing they were citing felt outlandish (maybe someone should). It could use a copyedit I think, something I'm not qualified to do. Otherwise it's fine, consider me support once it's fixed. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the CN's; let me know if there's anything else you see that needs to be fixed and I'll try to get on it. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 20:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose even the people of Romania didn't care about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of an unnecessary comment. Objectively, there is widespread Romanian media coverage and international coverage, and the referendum's successful boycott will have significant consequences. With all those qualifiers met, it's newsworthy - it doesn't matter whether or not we personally think that the referendum failing means Romanians don't really care about the issue. We should follow what is actually in the news (and this is), not what we think should be in the news. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 20:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, that's my opinion on the matter, and that's final. Your badgering is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do apologize if that came across as badgering, it was not my intent. I just wanted to point out that it isn't true that nobody cared (the opposite is true). My apologies for attempting to change your outlook, I will keep in mind that your opinions are are always final in the future and refrain. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 21:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He's right on both counts. Commenting at everyone who opposes your nom is badgering. Let others have their opinion. And the turnout does show that Romanians don't care. Less than 20% voted to support the nom, and that number would be unaffected by the boycott. ghost 01:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not convinced this is a very remarkable news story. It was rejected, the turnout was low, all a bit meh really. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For this sort of cultural issue, no change = no news. Sca (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Something didn't happen in Romania' is not ITN material. If this had actually passed I'd have supported it as it would have been a very rare case of bucking the cultural trend of the last twenty or so years. But this, in the parlance of the younger crowd, is a big fat nothing burger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a blurb for something that didn't happen. Lepricavark (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support opposes make it sound like not discovering something is unimportant. Just imagine going for a biopsy and the results come out negative, or for gravitational waves to not have been detected in BH-BH mergers ... Banedon (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If Donald Trump had a biopsy and it came back negative, I would oppose posting it, probably strongly. In this case though they scheduled the test but it came back inconclusive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What if you went for a biopsy and it came back negative - would you forget about the entire incident because it's unimportant? The point is, a negative result is still a result, and if the topic is important - this certainly qualifies - that's still worth posting. Another analogy might be a major election resulting in the electorate split exactly 50-50. That's still ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We did not post gravitational waves until they were actually detected. The decades of unsuccessful attempts were rightly ignored by ITN. The negative results were of course published in the scientific literature, and of great interest to those directly connected to the topic, but that does not justify an ITN blurb. Nor would we post one person's biopsy results, whichever way they went. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Mostly because the boycott effort succeeding is a clear victory for one of the sides. I agree with BrendonTheWizard that national referendums are as blurb-worthy as national elections. Davey2116 (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment since the results were announced on 6 October, why is this listed under 9 October? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposal failed, so nothing happens. The long-term effects are zero. Maybe if this had been successful it might have been ITN-worthy, but even them I'm not convinced. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Hesham Ashmawy

 * Support seems obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this belongs on ITN. But more input is needed.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose absolutely no mention of this in the article at this time; I'll be neutral once the quality issues are resolved. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this "news" item isn't covered in the target article. Plenty of coverage inside Egypt, but just a passing item elsewhere, so barely newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now updated and significantly expanded. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't going to change the situation in Libya's ongoing conflict, and we don't post the mere arrest of suspected criminals (at least a conviction is required). This person seems to have been barely notable before their capture - prior to that event, Google News shows only hits from Egypt Today and an occasional Reuters filing from Egypt. Our own article wasn't started until after he was captured. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from in regards to notability and don't necessarily disagree. But since when were convictions the minimum requirement on ITN? I'm genuinely asking. Because this development is basically the Egyptian equivalent of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán's arrests (all 3 of them), though admittedly with far less global news coverage. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're asking us to accept that equivalency essentially on your word. We need proof in RS. The absence of an article predating capture feeds into a narrative that governments tend to gin up the importance of people after they capture them (a running joke in the US has our government killing the #2 man in ISIS once a week). Note that many wanted fugitives do have articles already. ghost 12:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/C (not the namespace), where several contributors make all sorts of statements along the lines of "we wouldn't have posted this [US story] if it had happened somewhere else" to justify a story's merit/exclusion. You don't see them being asked to provide RS stating that the US and non-US stories are equivalent in terms of merit. So no, you won't find sources comparing a Mexican drug lord with an Egyptian Islamist insurgent, because it would make little to no sense for them to do so.
 * Now I'll give you the notability thing. But is there an unwritten ITN rule or consensus stating that convictions are the minimum requirement? Plus he was already handed the death sentence in December 2017. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other on this nomination, but if I'm not mistaken a similar proposal regarding arguably one of the most wanted criminals in France was not posted based on the rationale that "(Nation)'s El Chapo" isn't as important as Mexico's El Chapo because they're not as well known internationally. The sources cited here seem to demonstrate that this news story has some international notability, so I might be swayed if a stronger case is made for the story's merits, but per Modest Genius there should be at least a conviction first. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So what are the prospects of this getting posted? Because I wouldn't mind withdrawing this nomination in favor of DYK, which had initially been my intended target. Just thought I'd give ITN a shot. I understand how uncomfortable it might be for some here to support an article that was created right after the individual's arrest, which is rather unusual on ITN. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the newness is a problem per se, and we certainly don't have an requirement for a conviction to happen first. There are just very few fugitives whose capture would meet ITN standards. They would have to be widely known prior to their arrest: El Chapo was quite famous as a fugitive, ditto Whitey Bulger, who we posted. But I think most editors are sitting this one out (I haven't voted myself) because they never heard of the guy. That may be bias, or it may be that he really wasn't THAT widely known. I think you could get this posted, by showing major RSs talking about the guy prior to capture. ghost 11:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely to get posted; I'd recommend switching to DYK. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroshi Wajima

 * Support Very significant figure in Japan. No problems with article.  Tigerboy1966   20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Tydings

 * Support Article quality looks good.  Spencer T• C 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good Article. -Zanhe (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - no issues. ready to go,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Taliaferro

 * The relation to Lorenzo is not supported in the ref given. ghost 11:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * : Fixed. That info was in the article before his death a slight mistake.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support A little light, but what's there is fine. ghost 16:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - just above the threshold for inclusion in terms of size. but sufficient. good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Gagliardi

 * Support - Referenced and ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good quality article, well written and referenced --DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose head coaching record unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support when the table is sourced or removed The article itself is overall in good shape and I'm confident that it would not take long to get it ready, but TRM is right. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I added refs to the official college athletics sites for both universities. That should clear up the referencing issue. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well-done fixing this quickly. Since this was the basis of TRM's oppose !vote as well, there seems to be no remaining objections. I've struck out the caveat in my comment. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Now that it is fully referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay now. ghost 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) IPCC climate report
Oppose there isn't even an article to link too... Openlydialectic (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The report just came out. It seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to make an article, and even if an individual article isn't made, it can easily be piped to the IPCC article.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - When article is ready. Someone has written a little Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the main article. That should in bold. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the newly made article - Looks good enough to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle – Per previous. Favor updating existing, exhaustive IPCC article. Sca (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I feel like we maybe crystal-balling this nomination, it is too far in the future to know exactly what and when it will happen (or even if it will happen). Kirliator (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC))
 * It's going to happen. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus. The point of the report is to indicate that substantive and immediate policy changes are needed (but not likely) in order to prevent this outcome.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They're using sound scientific forecasting, but that is what it remains, its a long-term forecast assuming all trends remain unchecked and no other global factors come into play. Completely scientifically sound, but still what we'd call a crystal ball if we tried to state in WP's voice. --M asem (t) 15:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that "climate change" is a liberal hoax pushed by Hillary Clinton and George Soros to force world government and put free thinking people in FEMA concentration camps, right? These fake news "scientists" are just globalist atheists who are trying to destroy sovereign nations. This must be more "fake news" from the fanatical left. No way a large diverse international body of experts could be reporting this calamity, and that report be covered in WP:RS right? We're better off second guessing them. SMH. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about this being fake news or bad sciences. Its just that it is a long-term forecast rather than any objective concrete result. I fully expect the rest of the civilized world outside of the US (at least, presently) to look to some global action on this report (eg carbon credits/fines) which when signed into treaty or some equivalent manner would certainly be ITN like the Paris agreement. But with this as a forecast, its similar to the adjustments of the Doomsday Clock - all well-informed conclusions from experts, but all speculative even with the best data and forecasting possible. --M asem (t) 16:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is nothing like the Doomsday Clock. The clock is pure guesswork based on nothing more than personal opinion; the IPCC report is a systematic review of published scientific research papers. It's astounding that anyone would equate the two. This is prediction, but detailed scientific prediction based on well-understood physical phenomena and economic science. It should be posted as the best-available scientific analysis of global warming, not because it might lead to policy changes (which might themselves also be postable, if they happen, but that is crystal balling). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the report and I'm not saying its bad science, nor something to dismiss, but it still remains predictions rather than tangibles. The range of error out in 2040 is rather high with their "worse case" (no change in policy) potentially still potentially leading to less than a 1.5 degC increase. (of course, that's the case also more likely to hit 2 degC too). The purpose of the report is to establish the trends, what will likely happen at the 1.5 and 2 degC marks, and what they suggest as immediate policy actions to take to advert that. Without any firm action at governmental levels, it remains only a report to try to drive policy change. --M asem  (t) 05:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose No mention of anything like the blurb in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not questioning the scientific merit of the report but it is scientifically-based crystal-balling. It's one thing when they do confirm a x-degree rise in average global temperature as something that has actually happened, and they're using sound evidence to project forward. What likely will come out of this are resolutions to be put in play by the Paris agreement (read: no US involvement) on fining carbon emissions, which would be an action of ITN value. --M asem (t) 14:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Switching to Weak Support - still standing on principal that this is more forecasting and crystal balling, but agree that the report has garnered non-sensationalist coverage and responses worldwide to be ITN. Would like to see more on the scientific communities responses in addition to gov'ts. --M asem (t) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Largely per Masem but also on article quality. This is a large article and perfection is not a reasonable standard. But it needs updating and there are significant gaps in referencing that would need to be fixed before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though I don't like the blurb so added alt1. That explains what they actually did, avoids the crystal ball, and adds a link to global warming (which is an FA). The relevant section of the article could do with fleshing out - it's still in future tense and discusses the draft version. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I favor the alt blurb as well. It is more precise than the blurb I provided, which I fully admit was weak.--WaltCip (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * → Somewhat streamlined Alt2 offered above. Sca (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Masem, it is scientifically-based crystal-balling. Störm   (talk)  16:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Clairvoyants use crystal balls, not scientists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb provided by Modest Genius On principle I support the story, but in general we want to avoid crystal-balling, even when it's clearly rooted in science. This !vote is independent of quality concerns which may or may not be too large to fix in a short time. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment an article on the report has been created --Danski454 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a stub at the moment, but it's probably quicker to bring that up to postable length than tidy up the IPCC article. I've updated alt1 and alt2 accordingly. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb 1 generally I believe something of this consequence should be posted, but only once the article is no longer a stub (or posted now with a link to the main IPCC section about the report, which would be changed once the article is no longer a stub) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support altblurb. Major story, articles are pretty good. (The IPCC article has a few missing citations, but not for the relevant section.) Davey2116 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant scientific story of existential global importance. There is no place for climate change denial on an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who in this thread do you see denying climate change? Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And where do you think climate change denial is hosted? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I thing we are leaning to support here, but the report article is still too thin to post at the moment. --Tone 07:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support preferably using alt2, with alt1 as an adequate substitute. All over the news worldwide, and understandably and rightly so (even tho, incidentally, I'm personally rather skeptical of what I tend to see as a panic that, for better or worse, will probably be rendered largely irrelevant by the seemingly far more significant likely arrival of Artificial Super-Intelligence in the not-too-distant future - but such personal opinions of mine should normally not be relevant to what we should post at ITN).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Incidentally, even tho this arguably violates WP:Crystal, the report can reasonably be expected to have a good chance of significantly changing both debate and policy for years to come, which is what makes it 'notable' and 'encyclopedic'. But we're not supposed to say so because of WP:Crystal. This is one of our typical crazy Catch22 situations that is a gift to WP:Wikilawyers - if you mention its possible future impact you get hit with CRYSTAL, if you don't you get hit with WP:Lasting or Unencyclopedic or Not notable or whatever other bit(s) of our rules tell us we should think about how it will look in 10 years' time. (And, incidentally, this Catch22 self-contradiction in our rules logically applies to all our postings, even tho in practice only some kinds of item get hit with it.) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the irony factor of some tree-hugging do-gooders flying half way around the world to look at saving the planet. Don't they have Skype?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we went looking we could probably find dozens of other such ironies about this story and every other story on Wikipedia (they all involve humans directly or indirectly, and there are always loads of ironies connected with humans, such as our claim to be intelligent despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary ). So if the presence of irony is a valid reason for not posting we should just shut down ITN right away Tlhslobus (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on significance. This is news with a global impact. Article could use some expansion, but it isn't terrible. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is too crystal-bally. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose David Suzuki and the Ninja Turtles warned us about this thirty years ago, and have increasingly been joined by a chorus of arguably more notable champions. The idea of killing billions of people through our collective negligence was shocking and newsworthy once upon a time, but we've all settled on our individual coping mechanisms and simply repeating the warning isn't going to trigger anything it didn't before. When "the other side" start pleading for the planet in practice, then we'll all know it's finally the end of the world (I'd support that blurb). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2 (and only that alt blurb). A report was released, it was considered in the media to be a groundbreaking report, and a quick google search shows that it made widespread international news. Altblurb 2 sticks to the basics and avoids some of the "crystal-balling" (not sure I agree with applying that term here, but that is unimportant) that other editors expressed concern about. If it's widely reported in international news, unique, and consequential, then post it. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Groundbreaking report on the biggest global issue of our time. This is what happened to Krypton.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a big issue yesterday. Today it's all about the dire lack of female superheroes. Same problem Themyscira faced. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fake News - it obviously can't possibly be the same problem, as unlike Themyscira, Planet Earth isn't yet a Lesbian utopia, and Krypton wasn't either. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Foiled again You win this round, Brainiac! But lush moist fantasy jungle is itself a thing of the scientific past; it's all enormous pointy frozen moon wangs today. I'd bet Europa would kill for a little of our precious gas about now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This just in Science discovers key to saving planet is devouring fewer inhabitants. Oddly, this tip seems absent from American daily news. Maybe not odd at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, InedibleHulk. Of course, (Shhh! Don't tell anybody, but) there are presumably bad and mad conspiracy theorists out there who might claim that this looks rather like yet more of the same allegedly-highly-profitable-for-some advice that allegedly may have created our obesity pandemic. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, come on. Magical fructose crystals can't stay that profitable forever. Or can they?  InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Shock! Horror! Yet more Fake News at ITN - the only mention of "greenhouse gases" in the Krypton article is in relation to what is encountered by inhabitants of Daxam, a completely different planet. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support It isn't newsworthy every time an agency releases a new report about how bad global warming is going to get, but it is newsworthy when the organization that received a Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change releases such a report. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Support in principle but the report article still needs expanding a bit. That "under construction" tag has been there a while now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article has been expanded. I've removed the tag since there has been no activity in the last couple of hours. --Tone 07:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull - I don't see a consensus for posting this. There isn't really anything new about what's in the report, it just reaffirms much of what we already knew about climate change. Plus, there are elements of WP:CRYSTALBALL, per the above comments. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it wasn't pulled, as there was an apparent 15-7 supermajority (meaning at least 2 to 1) for posting when it was posted, which is usually seen as consensus, all the more so as two of the earliest opposes were based on outdated quality objections, making it seemingly more like 15-5 in favour of posting (and now 16-6).Tlhslobus (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - This is clearly newsworthy and I agree that Alt2 (the posted version) was the most reasonable way to approach this. The article could be improved but is not so problematic to prevent posting, in my opinion.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Support in principle but the blurb is too vague. Describing that economists are awarded a prize for their work on macroeconomics is like saying that mathematicians are awarded a prize for their work on geometry. I have therefore proposed another blurb that more precisely describes their contribution to the field for which they received the prize. Both articles are in good shape, indeed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but the blurb is highly misleading Correct me if I am wrong, but the comitee didn't even mention the word "climate" (or "change) in their announcement. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well actually, they did. See the press release from the Royal Swedish Academy. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 12:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: what the Royal Swedish Academy refers to as "long-run macroeconomic analysis" is more commonly known as economic growth or "growth theory". Maybe the link in the blurb should be piped appropriately. --bender235 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Provided Alt2. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, only for altblurb2. Otherwise, oppose from me. Störm   (talk)  16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have modified the first alternative blurb to refer to economic growth. Climate change and technological innovation are too important to be omitted from the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Both winners' articles look good enough to me. I prefer alt1, but all three blurbs seem to be correct. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to quote the reasoning, because it's copied (almost) exactly from the press release. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 18:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull??? Even at first glance, posting seems to have been premature on quality grounds, at least to me, tho I leave it to others to decide whether it requires pulling, as in general I'm not a good judge of such matters, and I intend to now just try to at least partly remedy the quality issue that most concerns me - specifically there's no text in Romer's Career section (as distinct from one sentence in the lead) about his role as the World Bank's chief economist, and no mention at all of the controversy surrounding his departure. But there also seem to be other gaps in our reporting of his career which I intend to leave to others to fill. And since these rather glaring gaps seemingly went unspotted I have to wonder how much else may have gone unspotted too (in this article, and perhaps also in the Nordhaus article, tho I have no current plans to look at that myself).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed (at least to the best of my ability) what I said I'd try to fix. I leave the rest to others.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Nyombi

 * Support It looks ready to me, the article content is sourced and it's not a stub. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I cannot reach the 3 of the 5 sources, which would make too much of a rather short article unverifiable. ghost 18:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I got a chance to take a look at it. I have removed some refs to dead links, expanded a little and added new refs - Dumelow (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready based on the above - Dumelow (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Victoria Marinova

 * Oppose article is a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when do we NOT post stubs in the ITN? Openlydialectic (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Since forever. See Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per TRM – and it's a developing story. Sca (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not ready yet - The story of her death was gruesome and tragic, but the article doesn't sufficiently cover her career as an investigative journalist or provide a sufficient description of her television show. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As best as it appears, this article fails WP:BLP1E (if the possible was only known for their death, that generally means the person was not notable) - she was not really notable until her death, and even though she had just started a program (last week of September) that was seen as controversial, the NYTimes article on this suggests there's nothing in the crime that presents it as related to her work. I don't even think a "Death of Victoria Marinova" could be created yet. --M asem (t) 17:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E has seized to exist long ago. We have article about the literal rifle JFK was shot with, or an article about the soviet officer who prevented a nuclear showdown in the 80-s. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First, articles exist which violate policy. MOST articles violate policy. Second, neither of those apply, as a rifle is not a person (with Kavanaugh, this may change) and comrade Petrov is covered under clause #3. ghost 11:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Natwar Thakkar

 * Support Article looks good to me. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-sourced and provides sufficient details. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine. ghost 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready based on the above support - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 12:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Meng Hongwei

 * Comment what's there is fine, but the career section could stand to be more detailed. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What if there is nothing else to say about his career? Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Any blurb or altblurb should mention he has now resigned (at least according to BBC World News this morning) - otherwise the blurb seems in error in describing him as the President of Interpol. And as regards article quality, the article lead needs to connect his arrest and resignation. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually his precise status may be unclear. Interpol described his Korean replacement as acting President until a permament replacement is elected in November, but some sources such as NYT (which shows the full Interpol statement but does not otherwise mention this election for permament replacement in its own text) seem reluctant to say that a permanent replacement is to be elected in November, perhaps implying that some countries may be thinking about something like refusing to accept the resignation on grounds that it may have been written under duress (the duress question has been mentioned by the Washington Post), which might soon further complicate how we should describe him in our blurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle on notability, as an important and non-routine story that is clearly in the news, but I leave quality issues to be judged by others.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per Laserlegs; I agree the career section could use a splash more detail before posting. The detainment has vast repercussions on international relations and world politics, and is being widely covered in international media. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 07:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer alt blurb Reads better. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 17:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 2 per all of the above. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb --Danski454 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Amended alt blurb --Danski454 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt blurb. Bad grammar. w umbolo   ^^^  17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, as a highly unusual detention of the head of an important international body. The article is a bit bare bones, but good enough to post. I've added alt2 in an attempt to address the grammar concerns and explain who is detaining him. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - although the blurb needs to be updated: he's detained on charge of taking bribes, see SCMP. -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very unusual development. The blurb should state that he resigned as Interpol president. Davey2116 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 this one fits better into the recent developments, in my opinion. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Alex Shih (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) New York (state) car crash

 * Oppose Was not in NYC, it was in upstate NY, and it looks like an unfortunate traffic accident, not aynthing like past purpuseful vehical ramming attacks. --M asem (t) 16:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you have the details right before you create an article. The wedding party was in the limo and they were killed, as well as several people in a parking lot of a store that the limo ran through after colliding with another car. This is all a sad traffic accident and not the type we'd have articles about. --M asem (t) 17:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose a two-car car crash; no article appears to exist and I'm not sure one should. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Still no; there's enough for an article but I fail to see how anyone can claim this is more prominent than Kavanaugh. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose No evidence this was anything more than a tragic traffic accident. The article title labels the incident as an attack w/o any supporting evidence. Right now I agree with Power~enwiki. The rush to create articles about incidents before the bodies have cooled and whose long term significance is unclear is one of the banes of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have boldly moved the article to 2018 Schoharie New York traffic accident. I remain opposed on the general significance of the event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although the current event has an unusually high death toll for such an accident, the type of event makes it somewhat unsurprisingly. While undoubtedly tragic, it is nothing more than a tragic, but nonetheless innocent accident of human error. Kirliator (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC) (blocked sock)
 * Weak oppose for now given the inaccurate title of the article, but once the title is changed, I will likely support this nomination. 20 people, let alone 20 members of a wedding party, don’t die every single day, and therefore this particular accident has some significance over the joe-average car crash. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per the above IP, not everyday that 20 people are killed in an accident, however the current state of the article is too stubby for ITN inclusion, give or take a few hours for more developments to be revealed and I may support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC) (blocked sock)
 * Oppose Nonexistent articles do not belong in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 19:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the WHO, "Over 3 400 people die on the world's roads every day." Moscow Mule (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good-faith nom, but unfortunately road accidents are barely national news due to their frequency and certainly not of the coverage and significance level require for ITN. In fact, car crashes are one of the leading causes of death in the developed world, with thousands killed every day. AusLondonder (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question posted a bush crash in Hong Kong in February. If someone could tell me the difference that'd be great.
 * this one was from 2013. Should I find more? Interestingly it almost seems like the only traffic accidents we don't post are from the US:  --LaserLegs (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those past accidents involved public transportation or large-scale commercial transport, which are normally highly regulated industries to protect the public. These were private vehicles (though I do realize that there's questions on the limo company's lack of maintenance, etc. that will likely make them liable for civil and possibly criminal penalties). --M asem (t) 23:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems that KMB is a private operator, similar I think to a private limo company. Twasn't no city bus that crashed in February (where the four and only !votes specifically cited the death toll). --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - re-opened; I have closed the AFD as Keep. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support due to the significant loss of life—highest in the U.S. in a decade. Article is fine now that it's had over a day to develop. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is still in the news, article is in good shape. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and this is an unusual accident with a high death toll. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose no long-term significance. Banedon (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I hesitated on supporting as the article was under AfD. Now, I can support it per my view of the purpose of ITN. The incident is still attaining lots of coverage (especially considering that an investigation has found that the limousine failed its safety inspection), and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Heavy coverage and article is good for an unusual event that has a high death toll. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I still oppose. Literally thousands of people die every single day in road accidents. Incidents like this are common across the world. Simply because it happened in the U.S. and not India does not mean it is ITN worthy. AusLondonder (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - though I know this is an Americanized event. Had it happened anywhere else it would not have reached international news like this. Anyway, a lot of coverage, unususl high number of death etc.BabbaQ (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Accidents like this are very common (see "50 killed in Telangana on September 12, 2018" and "20 killed in J&K on October 6, 2018"). If we start putting all of them on the main page, then there won't be space for anything else. --ASF23 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Like bus crashes in Hong Kong? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, even the Hong Kong crash should not have been posted. --ASF23 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ready tentative ready. The quality opposes have been addressed as the article is in good shape. Supports pointing out the high death toll (deadliest in the USA in almost a decade) while opposes call it a routine occurrence (is a decade routine?). Anyway, would be nice for an admin to eyeball this. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, tho main blurb seemingly needs correcting (it did NOT run thru a crowd, it killed 2 unlucky pedestrians; 18 of the 20 dead were in the limo), and I leave article quality checking to others better qualified to judge than me. Worldwide news coverage, perhaps at least partly because it's very noteworthy due to its exceptionally (and possibly uniquely) high death toll for a single-car accident (see my comment below for more details).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) As I wrote when supporting Keep at Afd, List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present) seems to imply it's the deadliest single-car crash worldwide in at least the last 5 years and possibly much longer (although this could of course be thanks to the success of WP:Deletionists in keeping us all in the dark), and a lot deadlier than many other items on that list (including many non-US items). It is also the deadliest single-car accident that I can ever remember hearing about in my 64 years on this planet (although this could of course be down to my faulty memory and/or to faulty news sources). So it is unsurprising that it has received worldwide news coverage. Incidentally, it is seemingly also the worst transport accident of any kind in the US for about the last 10 years.
 * Are we reading the same article? "Pakistan – 2017 Bahawalpur explosion, near Ahmedpur East, Bahawalpur – 219 people killed and at least 34 injured when a tanker truck overturned and people rushed towards it to collect the leaking petrol" ?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  12:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hawkeye7, we are reading the same article (but maybe we're not speaking the same language ). I said "single-car", and, at least as I understand the word "car", a limo is a car, but a tanker truck is not, and neither is a bus, etc. Our Limousine article also seems to think a limo is a car (as when it says in the lead "A car with a partition and a lengthened wheelbase is called a "stretch limousine"."). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) As for all the WP:Lasting objections at Afd, and presumably any similar current or future objections here (such as Banedon above and Waltcip below), they seem to be little more than WP:Crystal-violating claims that they can know that this will have no lasting impact - seemingly the delusional claim that they can know that it will not result in any significant regulatory change in the US or anywhere else.
 * 2a) However, in fairness to them, after writing (2) above, I have subsequently argued elsewhere that WP:Lasting and WP:Crystal are basically mutually-contradicting rules that create a Catch22 situation, and perhaps this is just as unfair on the other side as it is on my side.
 * 2b) (Incidentally, re WP:LASTING, and even tho this is the wrong forum for detailed discussion of this, I'd just like to briefly mention here that the original Afd nomination, despite its wording being grotesquely inadequate, had nevertheless managed to ensure that an editor with just 30 edits had single-handedly got a seemingly basically very reasonable (tho poorly worded and poorly defended at the time) and good-faith ITN-nomination closed, a matter that may perhaps require lasting change to Wikipedia's ITN and/or Afd procedures ).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Certain types of events are remarkably common in some parts of the world, and remarkably rare elsewhere (Suicide bombings, deadly floods, school shootings, kidnapping of elected officials). It's entirely appropriate to post something that is unique for it's location. ghost 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't post traffic accidents to ITN, as the stories are solely notable for their death counts and not actually of any encyclopedic significance.--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If the accident had happened in another country, but bore equal significance (highly unusual, worst accident in terms of death toll, widespread media coverage internationally), I would support posting it as well. We posted Table Rock Lake duck boat accident, an extremely similar event from the same country where many members of a particular family died due to improper practices by the operator of the vehicle (in this case, a boat instead of a limo). There were actually less deaths in that instance. Why are boats more news-worthy than limos? What is the standard here? <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 14:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed Ready Tag There is no clear consensus to post this as of now. Most of the oppose comments are based on the merits of the nomination, not article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Tag seems premature. But, as regards assessing consensus, you're involved, as am I. Arguably there is an emerging new post-Afd consensus to post - since re-opening, I currently make it a 10-5 supermajority if I include you as still seemingly opposed (or 10-4 if I don't, as you haven't explicitly said you're still opposed). But I think it's probably best to leave it a while longer before asking for an uninvolved admin to have a look (it's currently little more than a day since it was re-opened). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per GreatCaesarsGhost. Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's just a car crash. Huge numbers of traffic accidents around the world kill similar numbers of people. Just today, 50 people died in a crash in Kenya . Posting this would be pure WP:BIAS. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bias? LOL bias was one in Hong Kong getting posted in 12 hours in February with 4 supports and a very similar accident in the USA getting pile on opposes and referred to AfD by an editor with ~ 30 edits. It stinks of bias all right ... anti-American bias writ large. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in that previous nomination; I would have opposed it if I had seen it. We are systematically biased towards stories from the US, not against them. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, viciously against stories from the US: be it bridge collapses, car accidents, supreme court scandals -- all of those things are in fact posted from other countries and systematically rejected when it happens in the US. Anti-American bias. Interestingly, the word "bias" appears nowhere at WP:ITN so that's a 100% phony made up !rule anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where was the other "supreme court sex scandal" that was posted? And as you know, it cuts both ways when we see blurbs for such individuals as Carrie Fisher.  Vicious pro-US story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bias is natural and ordinary and exists in all of us. WP:Bias which again is not policy, asks us to "work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing" (emphasis mine). If you're an American who supports every American story, that's probably bias. If your a Brit or Canadian who constantly rails against US-centric stories, that's probably bias. The key point is to LOOK INWARD; stop accusing others of bias. Speaking personally, I ask "would I post this if it were in a different country?" Answer: if it was in Denmark, or Ireland, or Japan; absolutely. An overcrowded country where every traffic incident kills scores, maybe I'm a bit more critical. How often are 50 people killed in a transportation accident in Kenya? I don't know; I'd need to look into that. I know that this limo crash is the worst in decades here. ghost 12:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - you're sounding increasingly hysterical and paranoid. There is no anti-American "bias" - proven by the fact a crash in the U.S. with 20 victims arouses such passion and yet when a crash in Africa kills at least 50 no one even mentions it, let alone create an entire article and massive ITN debate. Your entire argument is a red herring - you're screeching about an "anti-American bias" when the precise opposite exists project-wide. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there an article for that crash in Africa? Write one and nominate it. If it had been a bus crash in Hong Kong it'd be posted, in short order, with universal support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As an editor who has both supported and opposed numerous US blurbs, I find it annoying that those who so frequently rail against anything that could be interpreted as pro-US bias are unwilling to admit that there is any anti-American bias at all. And it seems strange to use the Kenyan crash as an example of pro-US bias when we posted the Hong Kong crash, which had far fewer deaths than the Kenyan crash. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's NOT "just a car crash", it's an exceptionally deadly car crash (possibly even a uniquely deadly single-car crash), which is why I've supported it, and I'm NOT American. The Kenya story is about a bus crash, not a car crash. (As for apparent suggestions by some above that nobody at ITN displays anti-American bias, they had me wondering whether today was April Fool's day, but then I decided better treat it as a rather amusing non-seasonal joke and otherwise try to just ignore it ). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would have opposed the posting of the Hong Kong bus crash had I seen it. It was a discussion that attracted little attention. I state now my opposition to the posting of road accidents in all but the most exceptional circumstances. My arguments above have been consistent and without a shred of any evidence of bias, a suggestion I resent. I pointed out that thousands of people are killed every single day on the road worldwide. I prefer to work on evidence. I've participated in many discussion across the project and edited a wide variety of content. I do not see any specific evidence being put forward of a deliberate anti-American agenda. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per LaserLegs. Opposers fail to convince me otherwise. Jusdafax (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this is comparable to 2018 Hong Kong bus accident, which was posted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per many of the above - it's incredibly sad, particularly for the relatives - but it is a local car crash and of near zero encyclopaedic notability. (yes, I can see people jumping up and down saying we post other vaguely similar things, but that's a straw man - I don't think they should have been posted either). - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose entirely transient and of almost zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on average there are over 100 deaths every day on US roads. This incident happened to lead to 20 such all in one single accident which is tragic certainly, but not particularly remarkable. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this happens to the deadliest US traffic accident in nearly a decade, so definitely not your average car crash. -Zanhe (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Without being disrespectful to those who died, this was sadly an average car crash, it just happened to have 18 people in the car rather than the usual 5 or less, hence the larger than average death toll. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the NTSB doesn't investigate an "average car crash". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, your definition of "average" is really quite unusual, like the Superbowl is just an average football game with a few hundred million viewers. -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this is comparable to 2018 Hong Kong bus accident indeed, which was posted. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for purposes of transparency, and to disprove the huffy Trumpist argument about "anti-American bias", and, who support this nom, have below opposed the posting of the magnitude 5.9 Haiti earthquake which killed at least 17 and injured nearly 500, while simultaneously supporting the posting of a single-vehicle road accident in New York. Anti-American bias? Yeah right. Look at the treatment of Hurricane Michael above compared to the earthquake and tell me again there is anti-American bias here. AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All of them should have made it on. I think that if anything, it just proves that ITN has very, very strange and inconsistent standards about what it posts - that varies completely depending on the subjective opinion of whichever editors happen to be active, about which kind of deaths are "most notable". It seems like 'systematic ridiculousness' to me, but that's just my opinion. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 13:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it's stale now, but the anti-American bias is so strong that literally two sockpuppets came to oppose. How sad is that? So much hate. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Haiti earthquake

 * Support if the article is ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose the article is light on details about the event itself. It's this sort of potpourri of specific impacts, each cited to an RS, but it doesn't help with the "big picture". Emergency response? Foreign aid? Will any of the damage have any long term impact at all? Not clear. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Improve first - notable event, but the article is lacking per the reasons described in the above !vote. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - has generated and continues to generate coverage in international outlets, to say nothing of local news. Banedon (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support significant fatal quake. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's keeping this from being posted? Tagged as updated; article isn't tagged as a stub. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and I've updated the death-count in the blurb. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless death toll (currently 17) significantly increases. Currently it is seemingly at most just the joint 7th deadliest earthquake so far this year (and that assumes all the deadlier ones have in fact been reported by us at List of earthquakes in 2018), and nowhere near the top 10 this year on either of the two intensity scales (Richter and MMI). For context, at present we are almost certainly not going to even think about posting the 50 deaths reported in a Kenyan bus crash (here), and we are probably not going to post the 20 deaths in the New York limo crash (even tho it may well be the deadliest single-car crash ever, and almost certainly one of the deadliest single-car crashes ever), so why should we post this seemingly thoroughly unexceptional earthquake? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the death total rises or further evidence is provided to show that this earthquake has caused an unusual amount of damage. Lepricavark (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you support, without providing a rationale, the posting of a single-vehicle accident in New York but oppose the posting of a magnitude 5.9 earthquake in Haiti which killed 17 and injured nearly 500? AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I supported posting the car crash in agreement with the rationale of another editor. Nothing wrong with that. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support Frankly, I'm not a huge believer in the theories that ITN is overtly and extremely American-biased to the extent which some people claim it is, but in this case it's a little silly that this hasn't been posted if Michael was posted (two fatalities in the USA vs 17 in Haiti). Both this and the limo crash should have made it on. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 13:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * support - and time to post this.BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Question will an admin please post this, as there is 7-3 consensus that the topic is notable enough to post? Or at least, close it if for whatever reason that doesn't happen. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 01:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Scott Wilson

 * Support RD. Article is fine. Filmographies are always unsourced. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  17:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's unallowable for BLPs and quality articles. We require sourcing particularly for non-lead roles. --M asem (t) 17:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What? They are unsourced in almost every featured article. w umbolo   ^^^  17:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are, that's wrong. It's one thing when we're talking lede roles in notable works, but we definitely need specific details on guest spots and non-lead film roles and not rely on IMDB for these. Standard practice at ITNC for a while now. --M asem (t) 18:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment you can just fork that unreferenced mess off into a separate article Scott Wilson filmography and get around the hassle of citing it. I don't like it, but it's a common workaround. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, article is far too short to split to sweep the unsourced parts "under the rug". --M asem (t) 22:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose filmography and awards both unreferenced. Unsuitable for BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have sourced the awards section. w umbolo   ^^^  20:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just the filmography then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(Pulled, Closed) Brett Kavanaugh

 * Support Obviously. The most important part of a giant story. Article is in pretty good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Puts the period on a very long sentence. Probably should get a few more citations for the confirmation; there will be plenty.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The inevitable finally happens, after so much high drama. Not sure a similar episode in UK would ever make the Main page. Guess we have the dire US political situation to thank for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Because we would likely never post the confirmation of a equivalent justice in any other country's top court, and this situation is one driven by Trump sensationalism reporting. Unfortunately, this !vote I feel is going to be fighting against consensus, so I'm making my oppose known but don't expect it to contribute much at the end of the day. --M asem (t) 20:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don’t be so sure. By the time the anti-American crowd have had their say this will be closed as no consensus just as all the other SCOTUS nominations were. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be so silly. This isn't an "anti-American" thing, but on what constitutes something worthy of the front page. Masem is entirely right in saying the appointment of judges is not a big deal elsewhere – it's a purely domestic matter that doesn't affect the rest of the world – the only internationally newsworthy part of this story is the allegations made against him. Of all the international news reports people have posted to try and "prove" this is newsworthy, none of them—literally none of them—ignore the allegations point, which is normally either in the headline, or the first paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. This is systemic bias exemplified. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize this ensures US law will be more pro-gun for the next 2 or 3 decades right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support culmination of a long nomination that has not appeared on the main page. --Danski454 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Not so sure about "high drama," but it's a no-brainer for ITN. Sca (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Support with a strong caveat that this should be seen as an exception to our normal custom of not posting purely domestic political matters, not as a precedent for future such nominations. All of which said, if this is systemic bias then that bulletin needs to be passed to all of the media and press outlets globally that have kept this circus on their front pages. Global news coverage is such that I think an exception to the longstanding practices at ITN is justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is not like any other Supreme Court confirmation in the 21st century. Very big news and gaining global news due to the multiple accusations against him. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - would not be posted if it occurred elsewhere in the world, and I am not sure that it has insane significance, but the media circus likely pushes this just over the precipice of impact and worthiness of an ITN blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added image --Danski454 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - national political story without international significance.BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh? See: Brett Kavanaugh blir domare i USA:s högsta domstol. – Sca (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The appointment of judges in the US is a local issue only (and I'm not sure we add every judge's appointment to ITN). The only reason he has been international reporting is because of the sex crime – the only (internationally) notable thing about him. If this gets onto the FP, it shouldn't be because he is confirmed, but because he was confirmed in the face of allegations of a sex crime. That's the only internationally notable thing about this. – SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Although there was the initial controversy about him being Trump's baby. But I can't imagine for one moment that the blurb will reflect these niceties. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly not, but there is now an alt along those lines to consider... - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is 100% a BLP/NPOV violation now. This is why this confirmation is in the media because it is sensationalist with everyone around his history. We are absolutely not going to put that alt with yet-proven claims. --M asem (t) 21:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) No chance I'm afraid of that getting onto the main page, and I've just had my £300 bet confirmed at Ladbrokes that this'll be on the main page before I wake up. It was 3/1 on, but still, a neat return of £100 based on the utter predictability of such a Trump "story" being swept into power while Europe sleeps.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even close, Masem. Everything in the alt is correct: he has been confirmed (no-one can deny this); there have been allegations (no-one can deny this either). There is absolutely no BLP violation at all. Without that angle, this is just US-centric domestic politics, not fit for the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Better odds at Brett Fed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. These details are fine in the article but on the front page, you are basically saying, in WP voice, that 1) WP disapproves of Kavanaugh (NPOV), and 2) that he should have been found charged for these allegations (BLP). And if this is the element that is why this is a big news story, that points out the media sensatationalism around it that ITN and WP does not indulge in. --M asem (t) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I honk think you're reading something different to me. No-one is even close to saying that's anyone disapproves of K (I think that's your NPOV shining through), and no-one is saying he should have been charged. As I've already said: WP is saying he was confirmed (he was), and we are saying there are allegations of sexual assault (there were). If you are saying we should ignore the allegations as sensationalism, then the appointment of a judge is not front page worthy in its own right. This is only news internationally because of the allegations of sexual assault. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You honk? But not just "allegations". We had the whole serious television coverage. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The key word that twists this is "despite". I'm sure there are certain things that a SCOTUS judge must meet/must not have. For example, were the Senate to confirm a non-American citizen, then that's a point to call out "despite not being a US citizen" as they superceded the law. But best I can tell, a SCOTUS judge having unproven allegations of sexual misconduct is noting against the law - the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill mess was such a point. The fact that people are calling this out is because K is Trump's nomination, they hate Trump, they don't want Trump's nomination or a person with a questionable background as a judge, but none of that matters to the legal process that just completed. That's the process that happens every time a new judge nomination is made, the closet is open, the skeletons are pulled out and dusted. It's only sensationalist in this cycle because it is Trump-related. So from a WP standpoint, we should care little why or why he shouldn't have been approved, just that he was. And when the story is reduced to that neutral/indifferent stance, this is simply not appropriate ITN coverage given that we'd never post the appointment of a judge in any other country. (I'll point out my usual NOTNEWS/RECENTISM rant here: sensationalism reporting feeds exactly the type of stuff we shouldn't be writing about immediately). --M asem  (t) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To add, there are future issues that I know are already afoot (probably every pro-life group is looking for the case to take to SCOTUS to challenge Roe v. Wade right now, for example), and why K's appointment is going to likely have future impact on the US, but that's not now. --M asem (t) 21:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A perfect example of why this is not newsworthy: people outside the US don't give a toss about Roe v Wade. That's for you Americans to deal with, not everyone else. You do know that the actions of the Supreme Court don't affect the rest of us, right? - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, totally agree on that point. CRYSTAL and all that regarding RvW as well as local political issue. Just that that will have much more serious impact on the future of the US than whether these allegations were true or not. Neither here nor there for this case. --M asem (t) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose A local issue with no international impact. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ”International impact” has never been an ITN criterion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Outside the bubble of the US, the only newsworthy part of this (I.e. The bit that's has had an international impact, isn't the confirmation, but that it was done in the face of allegations of sexual assaul. Not including that aspect in the headline is not giving a decent reflection of reality. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Way more coverage than any previous Supreme Court nomination. Has been in the news a long time and now seems the right time to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But in the news for a sex scandal right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet more American ultra-chauvinism that condemned the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong section to stale status last time this was brought up. As to the "This is not like any other Supreme Court confirmation in the 21st century" by TDKR, this is a classic example of conveniently moving the goalpost to say in the 21st century. Well, the controversy of Anita Hill wasn't that long ago, after all. Enough is enough. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do we mean to post every appointment to SCOTUS? If not, what is special here? I would have supported if he was rejected, but the partisan result is quite ho-hum. Unless we say "in the face of credible allegations that he is a drunken sexual predator" there's nothing to see here. ghost 21:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On average SCOTUS appointments happen only once every three or four years, and the impact of each appointment lasts for decades. -Zanhe (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some sources demonstrating international significance:  .  w umbolo   ^^^  21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to demonstrate "international significance", more titivation across the globe relating to the sex scandal and the ongoing stupidity of certain aspects of American politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All three articles leading on the sexual assault angle, not the domestic politics of a judge's appointment. - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Take a look at this: . w umbolo   ^^^  21:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb that doesn't mention "allegations". This is international news; it (and the Brazilian presidential elections) are at the top of international news in South Africa (scroll down for internnational, France, and Japan.  The prominence of the Supreme Court in American Politics is fairly unique compared to other governmental systems. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another set of news reports proving Alt1: all deal with the appointment in the light of the sexual allegations. None fail to mention that angle. - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb - this has been dominating the news cycle for the last two weeks, and not just in the US. -Zanhe (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dominating because of the sexual assault allegations... - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb. Very important topic that has been discussed for quite some time now. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * discussed because of the sexual assault allegations... - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing. w umbolo   ^^^  21:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about you worry about your own input, and I'll worry about mine. Pointing out inaccuracies isn't bludgeoning (you'll note I have ignored most comments), but ensuring that people know that the links they post are not helping their own arguments (including the three new reports from Christian 75, which all lead with the assault allegations), but show the opposite of what most of them are saying, is not a bad thing. - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of two above editors made an inaccurate statement, yet you took it upon yourself to worry about their input anyway. Lepricavark (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - International news, highly notable, and opposers fail to convince. This is what ITN is for, as I see it. Let’s post without delay. Jusdafax (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a news story covered world wide, some more examples here: Italy, Denmark, India - all on the Front page, and "top stories". Christian75 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is actually no new news here. Just confirmation of what many already think about the Trump administration. And it's about an appointment to a position for which an equivalent posting in any other country would never be posted. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as significant event. Strongly oppose alt blurb as POV. However, I don't fancy the chances of this achieving concensus. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the !opposes are because this is a "local story", or yet another hysterical "systemic bias" claim. Not only are these !opposes invalid because of the "please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" guideline, this story is also getting tons of international coverage (and it is irrelevant that the story is getting international coverage due to the sexual assault allegations). As to the "systemic bias" claim, if another country's supreme court nomination has its own well-sourced page or quality update to an existing page as this nomination does, I'd be happy to support it as well. Davey2116 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment and support. This already has 15:7 support right now, and it clearly serving the first purpose of ITN (to showcase Wikipedia content regarding stories that are in the news), seems fair to post. I will post shortly, unless anyone thinks the article itself is not yet of a quality or updated sufficiently for posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As an admin you are going to close a contentious topic in favour of something you've voted for...? Interesting approach! - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Supreme court appointments are not typically posted for any country and I see no reason for this one to be different. Isa (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Has 16 to 8 consensus in favour now,with valid reasons given for posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you just post an item that's less than three hours old and on which you've also voted? Isa (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes he did... despite my comment on him posting a contentious topic that he'd also voted in! The admin instructions also specifically state that "If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old", which appears to have been completely ignored here. It also seems that vote counting is the only measure applied to this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've discussed a minimum waiting period many times for noms, and every time it's been agreed that it's a bad idea. Admins do occasionally post items they supported. A few things can happen here: 1) it stays up, 2) it's pulled or 3) someone goes to AN/I and complains about Amakuru. That last one also rarely works out. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether it works out or not, he cannot supervote and close within minutes on a contentious posting after less than four hours. That's not in any way good. I've posted at ANI already.- SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum waiting period to determine consensus, sorry. You can head on over to WT:ITN and start an RFC to change that, but I'm almost certain it would fail. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure any admin can wiki lawyer there way out of most tight spots, but in the midst of a highly active discussion with !votes come all sides, he cannot vote and post with a super vote - that's just shoddy and sub-standard. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should revert your posting this. This is a hot discussion and you are INVOLVED. Let someone else make that call. Just my 2 cents... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs amendment. OK, so its posted already, but it needs amendment. He hasn't replaced a seat, he has replaced the seatholder. It should say "to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy". Moriori (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mostly per Masem. I know it has been posted now, but I don't think "Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court" is the "important current event" here, rather it should be the political significance and the lasting impact of yet another Republican and Trump administration victory, which has not been documented clearly I think in the current article. Alex Shih (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the usual cries of "systemic bias" ignore the obvious fact: you curb systemic bias by featuring more diverse topics, not by suppressing topics which you personally deem "over represented". The WP:ITN instructions do not mention "bias" anywhere, and neither does any other main page feature. If you want to make that a consideration for ITN, maybe start an RFC at WT:ITN, or better yet, at Talk:Main_Page since goodness knows we don't need ANOTHER Australian WWI pilot in the FA box. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and the ridiculous abuse of power by Amakuru. Nihlus  23:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Kavanaugh is an unremarkable judge, and replacing a conservative with a conservative does little to change the balance of the court. The story, however, is in the news, and the article is pretty good, so why not. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose I would have supported this if it led to a withdrawal as it would then be out of the ordinary, but this is now—despite all the controversy/media circus surrounding the hearings—just an appointment of a judge to a country's supreme court. Gorsuch's confirmation was not posted for example. Also I do not think an admin who !voted support should be posting this when there is not a clear consensus and the discussion is active. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Several Americans have condemned the Opposes as being complaints about systemic bias. That's bullshit!. They were mostly very clearly of the form "We wouldn't post a similar appointment for another country", without any mention of systemic bias. When your support of an item involves falsely based attacks on other editors, we have a big problem. Oh, and this was posted far too hastily. Because of time zones around the world, THAT'S US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply If you're talking about my comment, refer to TRM's oppose above, which specifically mentioned "systemic bias". As for "We wouldn't post a similar appointment for another country", as I've already stated above, I would support any such Supreme Court nomination that has its own well-sourced page and/or quality update to an existing page as this nomination does. Davey2116 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Well we posted this so that's bullshit. We've repeatedly discussed mandatory waiting before posting and concluded it's not necessary, so that's bullshit. A support based on attacks on other editors? Could you point that out, because it smells like bullshit to me. There ain't no bias here, HiLo, just a story that is "in the news" no matter how badly we wish it weren't. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As soon as someone resorts to misrepresenting my comment, whether deliberately or through incompetence, my confidence in my view is strengthened. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, that's ridiculous! LaserLegs did not misrepresent your view at all. You stated your view that we would not post a similar-level event from another country, and LaserLegs disproved that by giving you an example of an event that we posted from the Philippines involving its highest court. The further you cling to your view in spite of evidence, the more your façade of even-handedness falls apart. One could very well contend that you are exhibiting anti-U.S. bias because you'd easily support an item about another country that receives as much coverage as this item has. Davey2116 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 24 hour minimum bullshit and a steaming pile of your timezone complaint is irrelevant bullshit. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Pull First as a matter of procedure, it's ridiculous that this was posted (1) with only support from two-thirds of those commenting (2) by someone who had previously commented with an opinion of "support" (3) less than 3 hours after the item was nominated (4) when there is not consensus - and good reasons provided by those who opposed the posting of this item. Chrisclear (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's highly unlikely we would post the appointment of a supreme court judge of any other country, so I don't think this one should be posted, simply because it relates to the USA. Regarding the posting of the item about the Philippine Chief Justice removed, that was different, as it related to (1) the removal (not appointment) of a judge in (2) an unusual one-off circumstance. Whereas this item relates to the (1) routine (2) appointment (not removal) of a supreme court judge. Chrisclear (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have some evidence that this was posted simply because it relates to the USA? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by "evidence". The point remains that it's highly unlikely we would post the appointment of a judge to the Supreme_Court_of_the_Marshall_Islands, to pick just one example. Chrisclear (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that is a valid comparison? Fight systemic bias all you want, but please do it without entirely abandoning common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think it is a valid comparison - it's a supreme court in another country. The Supreme Court of the USA is not any more special than the Supreme Court of any other country - that's "common sense". Chrisclear (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when a certain subset of the community becomes so concerned about fighting systemic bias that they completely abandon reality. Lepricavark (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained why you believe my comparison of Supreme_Court_of_the_Marshall_Islands to the Supreme Court of the US is an invalid comparison. So far you've just provided vague insults such as "abandoning common sense" and "completely abandon reality". Chrisclear (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The United States of America is more significant than the Marshall Islands, regardless of whether you approach the matter from an encyclopedic or an international vantage point. It should not be necessary to explain this. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So is the reason why this item should be posted because of this perceived significance of the USA? Chrisclear (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This item should be posted because it is a significant event that is very much in the news. Lepricavark (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And is it "significant" because it's a Supreme Court appointment? Or because it's a Supreme Court appointment in the USA? Chrisclear (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's significant because it is a highly unusual case that has dominated headlines for weeks and has highlighted a growing divide in one of the world's most powerful and influential countries. Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose Domestic political matter concerning a singular justice of a court of nine. Huge ramifications for the United States but very little significance elsewhere. The confirmation of a conservative justice under a Republican congress can be more or less expected compared to the relatively unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia which itself was deemed insufficient for a blurb. 93 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull US-centric bias. Only relates to domestic internal affairs of the United States. Would we post a news item about a contentious nomination process for the appointment to the Supreme Court (or equivalent) of any other country? The United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Russia, etc.? The answer: no. Just because it's the U.S. does not make it significant or any more noteworthy. 99.255.66.40 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC) — 99.255.66.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * -- thanks for making a bad-faith assumption and trying to diminish a fair and valid argument that I was trying to make. I think you should also check out WP:SPATG for who not to tag as an SPA since all users with one edit are by definition an SPA and users shouldn't be tagged just because they only have a handful of edits. Thanks, 99.255.66.40 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. I'm not opposing this item just merely because it relates to a single country (or fails to relate to one). I'm opposing this item because the standard is not applied equally. The crux of my argument is just because it's the U.S. - that doesn't make this story any more significant or noteworthy. 99.255.66.40 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding your point, I suspect that we would have posted a confirmation as contentious as this one in any of the countries you listed. And I suspect that a certain editor would have been very insistent on a posting if the story had originated in Australia. Lepricavark (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, a gutless unwillingness to use another editor's name in what would otherwise be an off-topic, personal comment, combined with an argument built on a hypothetical. Not a very useful comment really. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And if I had used your name, you would have whined about that. I am surprised that you object to me using a hypothetical in response to another editor who was using a hypothetical. Lepricavark (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just digging a deeper hole there methinks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded to a hypothetical with a hypothetical. You responded with arrogance and bluster. Typical. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And now you have reached the blatant personal attack level. That kind of unacceptable behaviour is something that just reinforces my view. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have accused you of gutlessness instead. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment We bumped the image of a woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize for speaking out against sexual violence in favour of one of .  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An apt metaphor for 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An alleged sexual predator. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a major BLP violation. Since when do we permit stuff like this? Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull. His news is big in the US but not internationally. It's amazing that we only need 2 hours and 43 minutes after nomination to post this. Hddty. (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've posted lots of stories that contained less international significance. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN is not about international significances, but encyclopedic significance. The routine replacement of a SCOTUS judge is not significant even if it is the top story worldwide. --M asem (t) 02:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was about international significance. That argument came from Hddty. And I strongly disagree that this was a routine case. Lepricavark (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Pulled - No prejudice against re-posting if the discussion warrants. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's very much in the news. A similar story in a different country would likely have attracted very little opposition. Lepricavark (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another argument based on a hypothetical. No use at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opposition to my argument strengthens my belief that I am right. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Believing in your own hypothetical argument is hardly a way to convince others of its correctness. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convince you any more than you are trying to convince me. Lepricavark (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is very much in the news, and it is a good article (that I helped with a little bit). (And I do not agree with the early posting that occurred before consensus was reached according to an uninvolved admin). -Obsidi (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This should never have been pulled. Anybody who votes oppose is ignoring the sheer ubiquity of this story.  I have been around for Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch, and combined they did not get the coverage Kavanaugh did.  p  b  p  03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "This should never have been pulled." So you're happy with a nomination open for less than three hours while half the world is asleep, and which clearly did not have uniform support? I wonder if you would say that if an equivalent item, with which you disagreed, had been posted while you were asleep? HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See sex scandal for why. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support In the news in both America and much of the rest of the world. Claims that it will have no lasting significance seem to be WP:CRYSTAL, both inside and outside America - for instance the somewhat similar Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill case arguably changed attitudes to sexual harrassment in much of the world, but we can't be sure that it really did, due to the well-known post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (basically after doesn't necessarily mean because of), and whether it did or not doesn't necessarily mean that this case will turn out the same as that one. Claims that it wouldn't be posted for any other country seem questionable - if it were as much in the news then quite likely it would be, but it would be less likely to be as much in the news because people in, for instance, Australia, or in my own country (Ireland), are far more interested in what goes on in America than the other way round (and very sensibly so in each case, and for several different good reasons). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. Seems fairly straightforward. A rare noteworthy event that will have a lasting impact for the USA and possibly the rest of the world. The US centric opposes strike me as odd since that does not appear to be a criteria. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The US centric problem was that it was posted after less that three hours discussion while half the world was asleep. This seems to only happen with US events. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I stand corrected. Yes that is an issue. Thanks for pointing that out. PackMecEng (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Congrats - it's a pleasant change to see somebody here conceding a point to the other side. Nevertheless maybe you should unstrike your original point and just modify it to something like 'Many of the US-centric opposes...' (as many of them have nothing to do with the premature posting). On the other hand you might want to either strike or modify your prediction of it having a lasting effect, as being contrary to WP:Crystal like all predictions (even tho I think it quite likely you'll eventually be proved right). But I entirely agree with your claim that it's a rare noteworthy event (which is also probably why it also happens to be all over the news in much of the world). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What's rare and noteworthy about it? These fights occur every time a president tries to stack the court in his favour. And that always seems to be what happens. Is this different because it was about sex? (Nobody has actually said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Would be as comparative as Kardashians. No one (most of them) knows/cares about this guy outside USA. - Sherenk1 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Big international story. This is what happens when a certain subset of the community becomes so concerned about fighting systemic bias that they completely abandon reality. Lepricavark (talk 02:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 06:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did three quarters of that comment really have to be an attack an everyone who disagrees with you? If making Americans behave that way is part of the result of this nomination, then may we do have something. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually what happens when a certain subset of the community apply encyclopedic values to ITNC instead of tabloid trash talk. The only reason this is of note is because of the sex scandal and nothing more.  Publicising this selection is pure local politics with a scandal which (apparently) we can't or don't want to talk about on the main page.  Just because something tabloidy is in news outlets, it doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow that non-encyclopedic path. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wish you had said the same thing about the recent royal wedding. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Sherenk's argument—and who the heck are Kardashians anyways? (Pleeeaaase don't answer it. I know them, I'm just joking, and honestly, I don't care about them.) I will support if he is removed. I so will. — Angga  (formerly Angga1061) 06:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Masem. I have nothing more to add to that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It doesn't seem to have international significance, and even the national significance is not very important at the end of the day. It is one of nine judges. Life goes on. It is a crystal ball to say the impacts of the particular judge having effects on the scales of decisions. Maybe if a monumental decision changing the momentum of law is announced, maybe that should be posted when it happens. But the changing of the guard of judges to me is not very important, even if a media thirsting for scandal finds it the biggest thing in the history of mankind.2601:440:8500:4E9A:28EB:6CD1:E4F5:3801 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't post domestic politics below the level of head of state/government or general election. We don't post allegations, no matter how serious (per WP:BLP) - we post on conviction and Kavanaugh has not been tried let alone convicted. We defintiely do not post stories that are solely the combination of the two. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Tsukiji fish market

 * Support I am okay with this. The articles are both very well written and the issue is both at the top of headlines in Japan and has been mentioned by media across the world. Anyone else? Openlydialectic (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - i have to agree with Openlydialectic.BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many missing refs, new location needs a tense update. Looks like the new market will open 10/11 .. maybe that's a better time to nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oppose based on article quality. Full of tags. Needs general rewrite. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly not well written articles, certainly in terms of the minimum quality standards we would expect for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality is below ITN standards for inclusion, as it is missing numerous refs. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "fishmonger moves" is not important enough for ITN, and there are quality issues as well. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above, article needs major work and I am not convinced of the significance of a fish market relocation. Could be good DYK material if anyone gets it to GA status. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Been there a few times. It was a nice place to visit, but trivial in the scheme of things. -Zanhe (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Asian Para Games

 * Oppose. Not widely covered in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose may consider posting the close and winning nation, but not the opening ceremony, simply not on a par with events like the Olympics or the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or even with the Paralympic Games. --M asem (t) 20:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance. Lepricavark (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly per above, though also because the opening ceremony itself does not have a separate article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Following the precedent of mentioning the Paralympics opening when the Olympics were also announced. Wikipedia Current Events mentioned the Asian Games, so it would be unfair for us to not include the Para Asian Games. It is also important to elevate Para Sports in society for the sake of recognition, inclusion, and equality. Para Sports articles are often ignored by Wikipedia, too, so I think this could help raise the visibility of Para Sports on Wikipedia. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and ITN specifically should not be used to promote or publicize any cause or event, no matter how good it might be. We don't post the WNBA Championship because it is not nearly as popular as the NBA Championship.  Should it be?  Maybe, but that is a larger societal issue that goes beyond Wikipedia.  Wikipedia, and ITN, reflect what reliable sources publish, and unfortunately they don't publish about this event, which isn't nearly as well known as the Paralympics. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - and time to close.BabbaQ (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Montserrat Caballé

 * Oppose too many citations required for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What I see is that no such statement is crucial, but will take a closer look. Not to mention her would be another shame, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support One of the most important soprano in opera's history. Not famous only for the worldwide known "Barcelona". Deserves it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:41, 6 October 2018
 * Support. Well referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I went over the article from the viewpoint of project opera, and amended. There are still a few unreferenced lines, but if they seem a problem they could be commented out for now. - Her death was no. 2 news of 3 in Germany this morning, - lets not wait until people wonder if we missed something. - I'd like more lead, but am unavailable - RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment a little surprised she has no awards or discography sections... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add to the existing sections. Does that stop this being posted? The Italian Wikipedia page has awards with pictures of the decorations and some sources. 86.184.129.8 (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would if I knew anything about them. It wouldn't necessarily stop it being posted, but it does seem to raise questions over the comprehensiveness of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some awards. I wanted to expand Udo Zimmermann on his birthday today, instead ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also added some recordings. Enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, just a ref error with ref 31. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced article. Some valuable improvements by Gerda. Certainly looks worthy of main page to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks resdy to go. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Meng Hongwei

 * Question How can someone's disappearance be at ITN/R? Does he do it often? HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry my error removed it from ITN/R. Thanks for pointing it out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose until a "result" is determined, i.e. he's found, or his body is found or similar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. While Interpol is an incredibly important thing, this could turn out fairly trivial. I will support only if he is found dead. w umbolo   ^^^  09:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. His being found may be notable,(or if not found, if he is declared dead) but we should wait until then. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support item is "in the news" now, if he turns up alive at Euro-Disney we can post that too I don't care. Article, however, is very thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait We should wait until he is found or declared dead. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 11:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Close. I am opening an updated thread above. w umbolo   ^^^  17:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 43rd Chess Olympiad

 * Support alt-blurb. The article is in decent shape, and chess is one of the major sports out there. The election of a Russian official is... interesting, considering it's recent (bad) behaviour across the world, so it has some notability to be put in the ITN. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support first blurb, which is ITNR.  Article is in good condition.  The FIDE president election is a separate matter and should be nominated independently and not tucked into an ITNR which doesn't cover it at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb to save everyone the hassle of processing another nomination on FIDE politics. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. Setting aside the notability of the election of a new FIDE president, the Dvorkovich article is a mess. It is not bolded but it is not main page material to any extent in my opinion. The open event article would benefit from mentioning/displaying some of the games awarded the brilliancy prize in the other rounds, as the current state gives the appearance that the first two are particularly notable, but it is probably fine to post regardless. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. However, I believe that mentioning the historical significance ("This is the first time since 1986 that one country united the titles in both events and China have become the second nation to do so after the former Soviet Union") should also be considered. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. The article is in a decent shape, so I'm not sure why this wasn't posted yet. We can replace the blurb later if consensus develops for the altblurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted first blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize 2018

 * Comment. Text of both articles seems well referenced. However, the honours/awards for both recipients needs to work on referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the nomination of article and just corrected the link/source to the info on official website of the Nobel Prize -- Lantuszka (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason one party gets a photo and the other doesn't? Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you actually checked which photos have been displayed? Stephen 09:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It displayed the same picture last night, its the same picture this morning when I posted my query. If you think I am about to go digging through transcluded template history on the off chance it might have displayed a different picture at an earlier time, when you can be certain anyone from 'omg wiki is biased against women' crowd would certainly not have, then you have an unrealistic expectation. Next time answer the question with some actual information instead of making snide comments - a simple 'it previously displayed the other winner' would have sufficed, but you clearly didnt feel the need to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Karl Mildenberger

 * Support Enough sourcing. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose reference given to support the entire table of results doesn't support the entire table of results. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Anderson (sportswriter)

 * Support brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - indeed, short but ok and good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marty Pattin

 * Support Short but sufficient.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's barely above stub, but barely is just about enough. What's there is alright.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems someone forgot Marty’s Y on the front page. 1779Days (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wen Fong

 * Support: Excellent work has been done by the nominator to write this article from scratch - Dumelow (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good work. BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David M. Fergusson

 * Support - Just threshold when it comes to size, but ok. good sourcing. good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Kamaru

 * Posted Stephen 23:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ITN recent deaths a guarantee for ITNR? not a single comment.Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's silly. Stephen has doubtlessly assessed the quality of the article and deems it suitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This, and I'll back up that the article is fine for posting as RD. As long as the posting admin takes responsibility that the article is ready to post if there are no !votes for an RD, that's fine. --M asem  (t) 18:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leon M. Lederman

 * Support: Great work by the nominator to bring this article up to spec. Appears to now be very well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * Oppose Smith's article is a stub. The other two are just about okay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am really happy to see how the fast the articles of the laureates are getting fixed. I am sure it will be the case here as well. --Tone 11:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a Nobel award after all. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 11:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, as this is on the WP:ITNR list, support on the merits is not required as notability is not at issue. We only need to determine if there is a quality update and an acceptable blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, mea culpa. BTW, I've added a period on the blurb so that we don't forget it when it's posted on the Main Page, just like before (also about Nobel). PS: I was about to nominate this myself. Too late:/ — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 11:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And linked the Nobel Prize in Chemistry itself. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When this is posted, I would strongly recommend the Alt blurb: "work on proteins" could mean literally anything. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Smith's article is still a stub. I would be happy to support once his article is fleshed out a bit with appropriate references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to support after upgrade. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As far as I can see, all three article are up to snuff. Smith's is a bit on the short side, but it aint a stub. —  Wasell ( T ) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think this is fine to post now. --Tone 18:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would suggest using Arnold's photo here now. (fifth female Nobel winner if I read reports right). --M asem (t) 19:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially as we'll now have "female Nobel Laureate confusion syndrome" by having a woman featured in the top blurb and a different woman featured in the image.... I ... can't ... cope ... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir Humphrey.Lihaas (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Smilja Avramov

 * Support Article well sourced enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Emerick

 * Support Article overall well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: two uncited paragraphs in "After the Beatles" section including an award claim - Dumelow (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics

 * Would it be possible to actually wait for the announcement before nominating? We can't evaluate anything until then. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is coming in the next *20* minutes before we even finish arguing on this. And AFAIK, no rule that prevented nominating what per all chance is definitely going to happen. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn! beat me to it. was waiting to nom...15 mins to go.Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was a rule. It's just hard to evaluate something without knowing what it is- and unlike a sports event we don't even know who is up for it to write a hypothetical blurb. Just my two cents. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No issues, ;less than 5 mins to go.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * support - per assumption that the articles will be updated with this info within minutes. Other than that the articles has no issues. Otherwise just highlight the Physics category article. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, Ashkin's article is ok, Mourou's needs work, and Strickland's was just created. --Tone 10:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RE-created. Can an admin produce the conent of the old article?Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks that the article was deleted in 2014 as a copyvio, so there is no content to bring back. But there should be more than enough sources available now. --Tone 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but someone can reword it. Heck this can go into DYK too with expansion.Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At quick check, most of the content is already there (original copyvio source is not available anymore to post a link). ITN and DYK are mutually exclusive (unless you are willing to get the article to a GA status at some point in future ;) ) --Tone 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The deleted article was a copy paste of the information on this page from the Optical Society of America - Dumelow (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there's slight issue here. They didn't share the prize equally and we ought to make that clear because leaving it so is misleading. Arthur Ashkin has half (½ ) of the award while Gerard Mourou and Donna Strickland each has half of the remaining half. Hope someone can incorporate this in a new blurb. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true. im not sure how the protocol works there.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If we say laser physics, we can have it as it is. If we go into details for each half, then we can say half and half. But that would likely be too long. --Tone 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The page can go into details.Lihaas (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't mention prize shares in the blurb. It doesn't imply importance and is almost never included when sources make brief mentions of Nobel winners. The shares just mean that the prize was given for two works and one of those were done by two people. It affects the money they receive and basically nothing else. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of you. I don't mean to say one is more important than the other in the first place. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - regular, should be posted after due requirements per WP:ITNR. Articles are fine to me. Pollock&#39;s (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment All three articles almost ready, I just see some missing citations. I restructured Ashkin's article a bit to make more sense. --Tone 13:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mourou's article needs citations, the blurb needs to spell his first name with the diacritic and Strickland's article needs a citation or two. Do not include the % in the blurb either, that's really distracting and unhelpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Should it be noted that Strickland is the first woman in 55 years to be awarded the Nobel in physics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.132.14 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's not enough blurb space for it, and even if she were the only winner of it, unless it was something like the first women or other member of a disadvantaged group, we would not normally note that. --M asem (t) 19:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I've replaced the image of Mourou with that of Strickland because the media are (with some justification) criticizing Wikipedia for not having an article about her until just now. This will perhaps help compensate a bit.  Sandstein   11:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Balabhaskar

 * Oppose - for now. Until the article is fully referenced. Why do people nominate these kind of articles knowing they are not fully referenced. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They're hoping to draw more eyes to the article in order to fix it. It's a little odd that there's no standard for entering the nom (we could be getting 10 RD noms a day), but it still works better than any alternative proposed. ghost 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has several sections that lack inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

USMCA signed

 * Support on principle, but referencing is incomplete. I assume that will be fixed in coming hours.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * obvious support no brainer, all over th enews and financial markets. Should we add that it replaces NAFTA?Lihaas (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but sadly not as easy to pronounce. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be MUSCA or CUSMA? ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Obviously important, and newsworthy, especially after all the nasty things Trump has said about Trudeau, and Mexicans in general. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, like the elimination of Class 7 pricing provisions on certain dairy products is going to make Trump forget the look of mild but genuine pleasure a younger foreign man imposed all over his wife's face. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. This feels like it should be longer given how important to trade, and the current "Negotiations" section is unsource. This is appropriate ITN material otherwise. --M asem (t) 03:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Important enough for world politics to be included in ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The changes in this agreement vs. NAFTA are largely technical(even though Trump will spin it as a "big win") and this isn't really that much different from NAFTA. This is more of a revision than a new agreement. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats obvious. Its still renamed. That's whats in the news, esp. as per financial markets.Lihaas (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, strongest possible oppose then? If there's no significant change, why are we considering it? "It's in the news" is just one part of the criteria. ghost 11:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Seems to be a rehashing of NAFTA with some minor technical changes.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose article not good enough, news not significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Walt, TRM. Seems to entail some streamlining, but mostly minor adjustments. Sca (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if the blurb explains how this affects the entire continent. Our leaders sign a lot of things. If it's too complicated to quickly explain to a layman, laymen probably don't need to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted the comment. I was under the impression that North America doesn't include Central America so of course this treaty affects the entire continent (since by far the three biggest countries in North America are signatories); however from our North America article it seems Central American countries up to Panama are also part of North America, so it doesn't affect the entire continent directly. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment was fine and your view of the continent is (or at least was) the same as mine; these three and maybe Greenland, sometimes. Central America and the Caribbean are their own zones, in my books. What I'm stuck on is just the lack of apparent impact, beyond replacing NAFTA. Do rich Canadian farmers get richer and freer now? Do poor Mexican drivers get poorer and better-regulated? Does the middle-class American heartland stay exactly the same, or more or less the same? Has the gap between industrialists and environmentalists widened or narrowed? Who stands to profit, and who's footing the bill? That sort of thing. Even the article doesn't explain specifics well, so a bold Wikilink is only a bit helpful. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support historical development about a historically significant trade agreement. Article is fine, and I have just added a citation. w umbolo   ^^^  18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support once adequately sourced The differences from NAFTA are significant enough that there is widespread media coverage. So what if some of us, as editors, don't think there are significant differences? It is a trilateral agreement which will have vast repercussions on the countries involved, it's "in the news", and the article is nearly up to par. No reason not to post. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 07:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * what sources are you looking for? It seems that it is entirely sourced. w umbolo   ^^^  08:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I (admittedly) hadn't checked the article for updates since I'd earlier read it at the time of posting that. The article is ready. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Notable development in international trade; the article appears to have substantially improved since this was nominated. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Đỗ Mười

 * Support - I see no major issues. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I checked it for copyvio (something that seems to crop up a lot on Asian politicians!) and it appears absolutely fine. Ironically, most of this good article was written by an editor who is now indefblocked after an argument with the admin who originally blocked them ... who's since been desysopped. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Further cleaned up. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jerry González

 * Oppose: There are literally no citations in the main body of the article. Discography and filmography need attention - Dumelow (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outside of the lead section, there are no inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose in no fit state whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Charles Aznavour

 * Wait Obviously a more important RD than Geoffrey from Rainbow (see below) but needs proper citations first. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There seem to be proper non-English language citations already. But I'm sure we'll see English language obituaries quite soon. No harm in waiting a few hours - we wouldn't want to bungle this one, would we. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now: There are 10 unreferenced passages in the main body. As the nominator has noted, the filmography needs attention - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that fr.wiki has Filmographie de Charles Aznavour, which looks more complete and might also be a good option for us? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a separate article would be a good option. The list is too long to be in the article and adds little to it, I think - Dumelow (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Now done, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could mark those "10 unreferenced passages in the main body", or otherwise describe them at Talk:Charles Aznavour? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Clearly notable. Sourcing doesn't appear to be too worrisome. Most of the paragraphs are indeed sourced. I've seen worse. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with EtienneDolet.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Text now fully referenced. Only quibble is that some of the awards are not referenced but that is a minor issue. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Would be nice to get the rest of those awards cited though. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Proposed blurb, which I obviously support. Not trying to start a debate here, but if Hollywood actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman get to have blurbs (which I actually supported), then so should Aznavour. He was without doubt one of the most recognizable French singers of his time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral on blurb - I feel we should be more reserving on blurbs to avoid entertainers in general, but if we are in agreement some entertainers can have blurbs, this seems like a proper case for a blurb. --M asem  (t) 03:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that we are normally quick to support blurbs for George Michael, Prince, etc. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your reservationist philosophy, but it's not RD policy yet. Till that happens, there's no damage in having a place for "entertainers" from the other side of the Atlantic/Channel. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support blurb I hadn't heard of him before, but then again, I hadn't heard of a lot of famous singers before they died. "France's Frank Sinatra" sounds like a big deal. Davey2116 (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was a world-renowned singer at least at the level of other singers who got blurb in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Incredibly long career, still performing live less than two weeks before he died. A great artist who brought pleasure to millions worldwide. Also a prolific film career. Not just a notable singer. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Sold over 100 million records and one of France's best selling heritage. Also had Armenian heritage arguably best known Armenian. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb If your moniker is "(Country)'s (more famous person)," that's not a great endorsement. Like Masem said, the blurb standard (which is a little bit too much tied to popular acclaim) is bound to result in a bias towards entertainers. Are we going to post all these guys? Separately, note that George Michael and Prince were young and their deaths shocking. We didn't even consider a blurb for the very influential and giga-selling Glenn Frey. ghost 11:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt we'll post all those guys. Certainly not all at once anyway. Glenn who? He sold gigs of what exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Peaceful easy feelings, lyin' eyes, a witchy woman and one of these nights. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. But I thought there was a band involved somewhere along the way there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just like the Pied Piper led rats through the street, they danced like marionettes, swaying to his symphony of destruction. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ""We are all just prisoners here, of our own device". Sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Think about it. Scott Weiland died, and he was in the press for like two days and then gone. All the great songs that he wrote and all the wonderful shows that those guys put on, and the same thing with Lemmy, although the heavy metal community did a great job of memorializing him, this giant, who I’ll never forget, but he’s out of the headlines. Bowie went a little bit slower than any of them, obviously, but then someone like Glenn Frey just came and went. He was just as quickly in the news as he was out of it, and nobody even really made mention at all of Natalie Cole dying." Did we mention Natalie Cole? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support a blurb as well. The article is good enough and the article subject is notable enough.BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we have a rough consensus on a blurb. Posting. --Tone 13:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the Thatcher-Mandela standard is officially toast.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I could only hope that all made-up and unsupported standards go the way of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but I'm guessing this isn't the last we've heard from this ol' dog. ghost 14:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been toast since we posted Billy Graham (and Aznavour is a lot, lot, more notable than him). Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Post posting oppose to blurb Important figure in French music, but death at 94 isn’t unexpected, unlike Bowie or Prince with neither the influence or reach of either. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dispute that his influence was far less overall, and in the Anglophone world in particular. What's more unexpected is that he was still performing internationally, in Japan, less than two weeks ago? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb are you joking? Not even front page news.  Pull blurb back to RD immediately, this is getting silly now.  In fact, the article is not even good enough for RD.  Remove altogether.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks front page to me  -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the funniest attempt to refute something I've said I've ever seen!! "Supertalent 18+: Ispraznili su studio da djeca ne vide penis?" Brilliant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this any better? -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is if you love football: "Napoli, Ancelotti: Liverpool forte, sappiamo cosa fare per vincere"! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the second result for me. Maybe the filters on my end broke something. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, the answer is NO, it's not headline news. Thanks for helping with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, enjoy. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  20:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Late to the party, I know, but this should never have been a blurb. Man dies at 94. Come on, this is what RD is for.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Old man, for sure, but still recently active as a transformative singer on a world tour that now goes from postponed to canceled. That's real impact, not just thousands of obituaries. He will literally be missed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as rightly in use now. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wut?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved back to RD. I'm not seeing strong consensus for a blurb at this point, and though an argument could be made that consensus existed when it was posted, it was a relatively quick posting for a non-ITN/R blurb. So I've pulled this and moved it to RD with no prejudice against re-posting if consensus emerges. Vanamonde (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Sold nearly 200 million records, which only a small number of solo artist can claim. Aretha Franklin was a blurb some weeks ago as she was an singer of national importance for America, but so was he for France and some parts of Europe. --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why was this moved to RD? There is no consensus of such action quite the opposite. I support reinstating it as a blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the article itself is not adequate, even for RD. Posting crap like this as a blurb would set yet another unhealthy precedent.  And as for comparisons between Azanvour and Franklin, really??  Franklin was a global superstart, Aznavour was a French hero, and I'm sure he'll get due diligence at fr.wiki.  Nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your considered appraisal of the article, as it stands, is... "crap"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. Full of unreferenced claims.  A true WP:BLP violation.  But being British, we must applaud the effort.  So....  applause!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you believe it's that bad you should vote to pull from RD. Nationality has noting to do with it. Applaud all you like. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the bit where I said "Comment the article itself is not adequate, even for RD. "? I'll dig out that copy of Roger Red Hat for you. Applause.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you think the article is now (since your first comment at 19.05) "crap", you need to add a vote fresh vote in bold which says Pull from RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I don't need to do anything. But applause to you for your improvements to the crap article.  It barely makes RD standards now (there's still a maintenance tag in there) but nothing makes this a blurb.  Kate Middleton watching kids guzzle water is ahead of this in the news.  Old singer dies.  RD is exactly what that's all about.  Bravo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is "crap". If you think it is, it should be pulled. And not sure I see a 60 year career, 180 million records and world wide concerts by someone in their 90s as "Old singer dies". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. I found your edit summary at the article somewhat baffling. But thanks for your all efforts to clean things up over there.
 * Kate Middleton watching.. Right, I keep forgetting that blurb-worthiness is decided by British tabloids. Aznavour was in the front pages of major French, Italian, Spanish, Belgian and German newspapers, among the many others that I haven't checked. But yeah, you've made your point. Whatever floats your boat. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "crap" any more because some of you made some efforts to fix some of it up, so now it's passable. Great, and applause for that.  But it's still "old singer dies".  And as Sca noted, if it's not good enough for fr.wiki, it sure as hell ain't blurb enough for us.  P.S. Never mind.  I hope you can cope!  P.P.S. BOAT!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I always stick to the The Sun as it suits my reading age, apparently. And it's got a nice Roger Red Top. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That'll do, pig. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Franklin was definitely a superstar globally (although probably more present in America as she never travelled to other continents after the 1980s), but also Aszanvour if you look at the fact that he played on every continent, even in his 90s. He was (perhaps? - I assume you are American) not that well-known in the USA as in France, but even there he got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame last year. Both also had a political and cultural dimension. If you would use the records they sold as an indicator, Azanvour (about 180 million records) would even be bigger than Franklin (about 75 million). --Clibenfoart (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are American ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-posting/RDing comment – I was among those surprised to see Aznavour blurbed. His contributions notwithstanding, Aznavour isn't a household name, at least not in the U.S. (and, I gather, not in the UK either). Nor did he draw significant coverage on main Eng.-lang. news sites. Leave in RD. Sca (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: He gets a bare name-listing on French Wiki's version of RD, Nécrologie. – Sca (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That surprised me too. I never knew he was big in Swedish goregrind. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aznavour certainly is household in my generation of the UK, but that doesn't make him blurbworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support reinstatement of blurb. I was surprised to see it blurbed, I'll admit, but when I looked through to the detail of who he was I think it's fair to blurb it. WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. He was a seminal figure in his field, and probably as famous in France as Aretha Franklin is in America. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, old singer dies. RD was meant for zis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You make it look like he was a local singer who performed at some bars... he sold 180 million records.. :) BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. I'm saying he was a very old man who was successful predominantly decades ago and whose influence has passed.  He wasn't expected to live forever, and even fr.wiki couldn't be bothered to blurb it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb not Thatcher or Mandela. Bowie and Prince were mistakes, not to be repeated. RD is fine for nearly every case, including this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Amakuru. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Not a surprise given his age, not really "in the news", and simply not of sufficient global notability.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoffrey Hayes

 * Oppose still a few references needed, although nothing that should be contentious. I'll have a go at finding the refs when I get home. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that some of the "references" were links to YouTube copyright violations, so they've been removed and tagged pending replacements. I suspect this afternoon we'll have several obituaries to be able to pull from and fix that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything is now verified by reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I couldn't find a mention of the date of death in the references - Dumelow (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian obituary (now added as ref 1) gives the date of death as 30 September, so I've adjusted everything to that. Thanks for the prompt. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work Thryduulf. Happy to support now the date has been corrected and reffed.  Article is short but meets the minimum standards, I think - Dumelow (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's short but I don't think there's too much more that can be said.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "RAIN-BOW! RAIN-BOW! GET IT ON MAIN PAGE!" ITN Zippy 123 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh bu' bu' bu' that's not very nice Zippy, who's going to zip you up without Geoffrey? George333 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good old Geoff, I loved his slow innings. He GOT IN THE HOLE... (sad face).  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Now zip it, you lot. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

 * Comment Allison's article has a few unsourced statements. Honjo's is OK, if a bit thin, but his list of awards is unsourced. List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine should probably be updated as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did it. Was watching it live.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Unless there is some special reason, we generally would not bold the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine since the update there will generally be small, whereas the scientists' articles deserve most of the attention.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ITNR suggests the recipients are the normal target, but if the prize article is in good nick, no reason not to bold that as well. Be bold and proud. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if we omit the reason they won the award, as in the current Alt Blurb, there's far too much bold (more than 50% of the text) that would be distracting. With the reason for the award, its fine to include the overall award page. --M asem (t) 13:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd only bold the award article if it was a special article for this year. Peace Nobels typically have them. --Tone 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - should be posted after due process per WP:ITNR. Pollock&#39;s (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a regular, just remember (as always) that you don't "win" a Nobel Prize, it's "awarded to". --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose target articles inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I improved Tasuku Honjo and I saw the other article cleaned by other editors. I also reduce the bolding in the first blurb since it looks distracting. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - You don't win this prize, it is awarded to you. Should be posted per WP:ITNR.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)