Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 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.

(Closed) Macedonia referendum
--Tone 06:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait. It still needs to be approved by 2/3 of the parliament.  If this happens, it should probably be posted then. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2018 Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)(UTC)
 * I do think it is best to wait until an actual "final" decision is made. I recognize that it might be difficult to find a perfect time to post anything if Macedonia continues to hold on to its current name, but I do think this referendum is technically only a stepping-stone in this process and that there will be more "final" decision moments. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The controversy towards the name change beging now.
 * There shall be some controversy regarding Macedonia's name for as long as I'm alive, I'm sure. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The low turnout means that the vote is not valid, so the blurb doesn't illustrate reality (please see the alternative blurb for better description of the outcome). Importantly, the referendum was non-binding and the government may avoid the result to take the matter to the parliament in the hope of providing two-thirds support for approval. The other possibility, already mentioned by prime minister Zoran Zaev immediately after the results came in, is to have an early parliamentary election at which the ruling coalition would reckon on the results from the referendum to increase the number of members in the parliament above the required threshold. The expectations are that things will get more complicated from now on and the result from the referendum is nowhere close to conclusion of the whole issue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's no story without a 50% turnout. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per Mjroots. There's half a story in the incredibly low 36.91% turnout. But not enough for Main page, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point. If there is a final decision made to change the name, it should be posted at that point. If there is a final decision not to, then that might be worth posting (depending how final it is) but whichever, now isn't the time for an ITN posting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low turn-out means this is not final.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait We should wait until the issue is actually resolved before we mention it in In the news. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 06:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Ryder Cup

 * Comment well this took me by surprise, there are still matches in progress yet Europe have utterly destroyed USA (USA USA). If nothing is done in the next few hours (once the last matches are completed as well) then I'll try to do some updates once I've finished my travelling for the day.  EUR-O-PE!  EUR-O-PE! GET IN THE HOLE! etc. etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Altblurb solving ENGVAR issues added. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support awesome result, awesome updates. GET IN THE HOLE!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fully updated, ready to go. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support High quality article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced—and tagged— section plus unreferenced statements. Besides that, it's essentially collection of tables, having tables doubling the readable prose. I am not sure how this come to be a "High quality article." –Ammarpad (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, no tags, all issues addressed, and prose covers all rounds, cheers! EU-RO-PE!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense – there is more than enough prose. You must not have seen the collections of tables for tennis events that normally get nominated at ITN. This is a refreshing change. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insult. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted the first alt-blurb as we are an encyclopaedia not a tabloid newspaper. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the second alt-blurb was an actual joke as we are a community, not a set of robots. Well, some of us... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm devastated that my sensors detect that none of the usual suspects have yet been screaming that this should be pulled immediately as it's evil imperialist Northern Hemisphere Systemic Bias to post this before Saturday's AFL Grand Final (nominated below), and I'm also devastated that my sensors detect that none of the usual suspects have yet been screaming that TRM should be hauled before the Supreme Cabal for gratuitous speciesist incivility  towards members of the community if ITN robots  Tlhslobus (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018

 * Strong oppose 1) State-level, not even national level (yet), 2) Justice Department has already announced they will be suing CA over this bill, and 3) what is really important is that this case will likely end up at SCOTUS and make a determine how US broadband should be treated to put an end to the net neutrality fight. This is far too small and premature. --M asem (t) 05:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some perspective is needed here. I doubt we'd post an item about state-based legislation about net neutrality for a state in any other country in the world, so I don't see why this should be any different, simply because it relates to the USA. Chrisclear (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In fact, I doubt we would post this type of decision for most countries. It seems like a stepping-stone within the larger US net neutrality story to me, and I would like to avoid posting too many of those. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What will be notable is if it wins the inevitable SCOTUS decision, which it won't, because it's California and there's 4 (soon to be 5) conservative Justices on the bench.--WaltCip (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 AFL Grand Final

 * Support in Principle, Oppose in quality Definitely needs some work before it gets poster. Kirliator (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No "in principle" needed, it's ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being completely unsourced at this juncture. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 19:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Quite impressive to see an ITN/R completely unsourced, as opposed to undersourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose what Black Kite said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose completely unsourced. Lepricavark (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose at current. Some sources have been added but more work required. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Such as? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much better - I think with the last two paragraphs of "Background", and the "Media Coverage" section sourced (or frankly removed - who cares?), this would be ready to go. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. They're gone! All that bothers me now is the massive list of commentators in the Infobox. Again, who cares? I just had a look at the articles for the past couple of years. That list was there, but unsourced on both occasions. What do you reckon? Delete it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ready? That's my view anyway. The article is now much better sourced than the previous year's. How about it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Article is now fully referenced.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Echoing Hawkeye above. Is this being ignored for posting for any good reason? It's nearly 24 hours since anyone objected to the article's quality, AND wouldn't explain what the problem was!
 * Oppose As current notated, EVERY statement in the lengthy Match Summary is cited jointly to #15 & 16 (an ABC and AFL ref), which makes it decidedly difficult to verify. This strikes me as a red flag that citations were added blindly. I spot checked a few statements and found them unsupported. I'm not going to parse them all here, but for example the ABC source mentions Yeo's shot in 21st, but not the preceding action. ghost 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have fixed url for and copied scoring progression table ref to each quarter's summary. JennyOz (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. I don't think the objections are enough to stop this going forward; we don't need particular sources for every sentence of a match summary when they're covered over a number of sources. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini

 * Comment: Article looks acceptable but date of death needs mentioning in the article body and referencing - Dumelow (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in the source cited in the article to support a death date of 28 September? - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weakest support poor article but just about ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point, is it actually in the news?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Just about ok. But good enough for inclusion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Otis Rush

 * Weak oppose  seems mercilessly tagged but all I could see was a handful of items in the discog without inline refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What's lacking exactly? Maybe I need to add "GET ON THE MAIN PAGE!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to add that (in fact please don't), you just need to wait for an admin to verify that the article is of sufficient quality. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wouldn't want any trouble. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very few admins around here over the weekend doing this kind of thing. It can wait for 12 hours or more to post such items.  As demonstrated.  P.S. The "GET ON THE MAIN PAGE" was a humorous dig at the yankee obsession of shouting "GET IN THE HOLE" which is deemed funny or engaging per certain golf supporters.  It was used as an ironic cheerleading mechanism to get attention for posting a nice article, which it did.  I certainly advocate innovative methods to get admins to pay attention around here, especially since this particular item was good to go around midnight last night...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Poor Jim and his boys, they'll all be so sad tomorrow. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they're beyond devastated right now, forget tomorrow. Supposedly the best US team for decades.  HERE COME THE BELGIANS!! Swedes!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hahaha, and just look at the Belgians". -- May Election 123 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who doesn't watch golf, that reference passed me by completely (why is it necessary to tell professional golfers to do what is surely the entire point of golf?). Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's like watching football (association) with children, "SCORE A GOAL!" etc. Probably something to do with equivalent mental capabilities... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article got a nice spit-shine. Looks good to post. Teemu08 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article well referenced including discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, some good work has been done getting this article up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Ongoing: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

 * Oppose it's a media circus but certainly not an "ongoing" story for the main page of an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn didn't notice the recent ongoing nom --Danski454 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Bob Jane

 * Oppose. Very sparsely referenced at present. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunately, the referencing is dreadful, especially for an article of that length. Orange tag. Spengouli (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not good enough for even a BLP, let alone one we feature on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose serious lack of references. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per atrocious spelling of "tire", and for the whole "Contributions to Australian motorsport" possibly(?) never happening. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only place "tyre" is spelt incorrectly is in the category name at the bottom of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still pisspoor referencing though, as tiresome as that sounds (geddit?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the adjective my spellchecker objects to in that comment. Although I do agree. Sadly, although I nominated this, because Jane is definitely known to almost all Australians, I am not the right person to be chasing up the referencing. There is more there now than when I nominated it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should have a hyphen, even in British English. On the bright side, more non-Australians are now aware of Australian awareness of Jane. If it helps, know that Canadian Tire founders Alfred J. Billes and J. William Billes' articles are in even worse shape and deeper obscurity. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Asia Cup

 * Comment I would strongly mention naming the sport somewhere in this nomination, AND in whatever blurb might be chosen. Yes, I know readers can look at the article, but why make it so hard? HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably easier to have just added it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is in a good shape, decent amount of prose, sourced. Not sure how we stand with Asia Cup in cricket events regarding ITN? --Tone 11:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a 6-team competition, and as such does not have international significance or a massive interest to a general audience. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "does not have international significance or a massive interest to a general audience" seems to me to describe most stories we post at ITN, including all those currently posted, and this particular story seems to have more "international significance" and "interest to a general audience" than the currently posted stories (tho this is not necessarily a sufficient reason for posting).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, obviously a competition covering most of the Asian sub-continent (pop. 1.75bn) doesn't have international significance (sighs and buries head in hands). Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And the Six Nations Championship and The Rugby Championship are of no interest or international significance either. (Nor the Boat Race, before anyone brings up canoes on a minor tributary of the United Great Kingdom of the Queen's British Isles...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 5 of the 10 World Cup teams took part in the tournament, so this was like a mini World Cup. 1.39.172.3 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Question I've added wikilinks and made fixes to spelling and syntax, but does anybody know whether it's best to say 'India wins' or 'India win' or whether either will do? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (alt2 added for ENGVAR). This isn't ITNR, but unusually for sporting competitions, both the competition and the final article are in good condition, and this is very much in the news in those countries (which, let's face it, have a population of 1.75 billion.)  For the numerically challenged, that's about five times the population of the USA. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (And, incidentally, it's also in the news in uninvolved countries like Britain).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Question2 Should Asia Cup wikilink to 2018 Asia Cup instead of Asia Cup as at present? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Black Kite.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Asia cup is a significant and one of the most notable events in cricket. Moreover, it's getting media coverage from across the world. I don't think we should oppose its posting just because it's not in ITNR. Amir (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted) 2018 Sulawesi earthquake

 * Support. It's certainly in the news in my country, and major international news media have started covering this. There's also a tsunami warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga (talk • contribs)
 * I've seen mixed reports about the tsunami warning, some saying that where the quake was, it was not possible to generate. Caution should be used on this point until we have more details. --M asem (t) 14:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well actually, the tsunami did happen, as BBC (and a WhatsApp broadcast video I got from a friend) confirmed. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 14:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now reports are definitely confirming it. Added altblurb about that. --M asem (t) 14:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added second alt to reflect that they had determined at least 3 major quakes >6.0 that all contributed to damage (6.1 first, then this 7.5, then a 6.5 later), so we don't have to worry about identifying when and where these deaths/injuries were occurred. Latest news seems to have a potentially higher death toll but I have not yet found a reliable number. --M asem (t) 18:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A "reliable number" for events such as this can take weeks or months. That's the nature of major disasters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tentative support – Major tsunami confirmed in Palu; very early stages of the disaster so not much to work with on notability, but it's certainly ITN and the type of event that would inevitably be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article not ready yet. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the earthquake hit this afternoon, so for now, you can't expect it to be ready, what with the future updates and all. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. - Major bews. Early days but posting seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, significant earthquake that is widely reported internationally. Article looks fine. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support An earthquake of this magnitude hitting almost any inhabited place should be notable enough for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to me. Obviously notable. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Major news. The article will change as facts become clearer, but that's not a reason to not post. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Going into detail about why it's newsworthy would only be stating the obvious. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support For obvious reasons. Also, death toll has risen to 30, expect it to rise further. Juxlos (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support either Blurb 2 or 3 as the tsunami is worth noting. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for including tsunami information In most cases, tsunamis should not be mentioned (or rather, strategically de-emphasized) and should be treated with scrutiny (I think) as they are typically tiny and the public goes crazy because of what happened with the 2004 mega tsunami, but in this case, it would be appropriate to include the tsunami detail as it had ten foot waves and washed away houses. I'll let others decide on which blurb is best. (2 or 3) -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, must mention tsunami - the earthquake itself may not be ITN-worthy, but the tsunami certainly is, since catastrophic tsunamis are fairly rare (only 3rd this century after Boxing Day 2004 and Japan 2011?). Article is already in good enough shape to post. I probably prefer alt blurb 2 even though it's rather long. Adpete (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I've added alt #3; the tsunami also hit Donggala (also a near-coast regency) and 48 are confirmed dead, according to CNN. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:04; edited 05:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt3. --M asem (t) 05:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting update: Can an admin please update the numbers of casualties? BBC and CNN have relayed the information from the Indonesian Disaster Management Agency that 384 have been confirmed dead and 540 injured. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 08:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no rush really. The final figure won't be known with any certainty for weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a rush, figures are of course updated, once reliably sourced. Even now, it appears so. But the more appropriate place to raise this issue is WP:ERRORS.–Ammarpad (talk)
 * From ABC News (the Australian one) right now - "The Head of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), Willem Rampangilei, told reporters in Sulawesi late on Saturday that the death toll from Palu had reached 420 people, according to news website Kompas.... Indonesia's Vice President Jusuf Kalla warned it could rise into the thousands." (See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-29/indonesian-tsunami-death-toll-expected-to-rise-dramatically/10321298). This is simply the reality with such events. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's also the reality with Wikipedia. It's updated in real time. The example of new toll you're given was already on the template an hour before your post. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Brett Kavanaugh Committee vote and FBI investigation

 * Strong oppose based on the previous nomination. the point to consider this (and that's not a assurance to post) is when he is fully confirmed or when he withdraws his nomination. --M asem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per proposal, for proposed 2nd alternate blurb. Sagecandor (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support Major development, in addition to the reasons I noted below. I would also support ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very strongly oppose blurb as this is a slow-moving, developing story where the individual events on their own are not notable. Weak support ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose / wait per above or until he's cleared of charges or found guilty. At this stage this looks more like procedural work. Brandmeistertalk  22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He won't be found "guilty" per se as the process is not a trial, but a job interview. They would reject his nomination based on findings, if need be. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose US-centric. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the "please do not" section above, it says "... 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." It light of this, would you be willing to share your views on the nomination other than your opposition on the basis of its US focus?
 * Opposing because the nomination is US-centric is not the same as opposing simply because it relates to a single country. It's because that single country is the United States AND because US-centrism is a part of Wikipedia's systemic bias. There are editors from every country unable to see things about their country with the global perspective necessary for this encyclopaedia, but simply because of the nature of the project, there are more of them from the US than from any other country. In an environment such as ITN, where vote counts do unfortunately matter, it's always worth being aware of this danger and drawing it to the attention of others. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's systemic bias is just an essay; it is NOT a policy or guideline. And many clearly think that ITN is systemically biased against the US (as in, for instance, WP:ITNCABAL, which is of course at least partly a joke, but then it's well-known that 'many a true word is spoken in jest'). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the rationale below remains for me. Post if he withdraws or if he is rejected due to the accusations, nominate and discuss if he is confirmed. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. I doubt we'd post a story about a supreme court nomination from any other country in world, nor a law enforcement investigation of a supreme court nominee from other country in the world. I don't see why this particular nomination should be considered any different, simply because it relates to something happening in the US. Chrisclear (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The first blurb does not mention the country that this story relates to, and as such is lacking context. Chrisclear (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unresolved, still up in the political air. Sca (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Close please Could some uninvolved admin please close this to avoid further pointless time-wasting - there's clearly no consensus to post at this time, and the same debate already reached the same conclusion about what was almost the same nom yesterday. Barring some extraordinary development, future such noms should probably be snow-closed until Kavanaugh either wins or loses/withdraws. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) UEFA Euro 2024

 * Comment The only host city/country selection that is presently ITNR is for Olympics. We just had a discussion on the host selection for FIFA that failed to gain consensus to add. --M asem (t) 14:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we need one of these: a. the selection process is controversial or otherwise interesting, b. the choice is shocking (cough...Qatar), c. There are significant infrastructure impacts. ghost 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Choosing a venue for the Euros is not on the scale of a worldwide competition like the Olympics.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I love the Euros, but we should only post the announcement of the host when it is surprising or controversial. This is especially ture when the selected hosts of the preceding tournament were a shock. Germany is not, and so likely does not require an ITN blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not on the same scale as the Olympics or the World Cup. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose even as one of the biggest football anoraks on this site, I don't see the global impact of this as compared to the awarding of the Olympics and World Cup, which are global events and have bidding processes awash with scandal and controversy. Let's wait eight years and post the winner of the event, which will be a story of greater interest Harambe Walks (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not significant outside European football, and arguably not really that significant within it either. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Marty Balin

 * Comment. Article is well referenced with the exception of the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose some unreferenced claims in the bio and as noted above, discog, including chart positions, unref. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stale. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kavita Mahajan

 * support - ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know if she meets WP:AUTHOR or not, but this very short article fails to demonstrate that. If shes "critically acclaimed," how about some critical commentary? ghost 11:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not seeing any of the problems with the article ghost does, but if they truly think they don't meet the notability criteria then they should nominate the article for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support sufficient coverage and adequate article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Payton

 * support - just above the threshold for inclusion. ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see significant coverage in secondary sources here. The Marshall sources are essentially primary/promotional, and the rest is largely trivial. ghost 12:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * However, because he played some professional games, WP:NSPORT (more NGRIDIRON) presumes notability. We really cannot oppose this on that point, but I would agree that this is not a quality article due to the # of primary sources involved. --M asem (t) 13:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I accept that the target is notable, but my reading of GNG is that which makes a subject notable must be demonstrated in the article. So I'm a weak oppose on quality of the referencing. ghost 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For notability, either the GNG or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines needs to be met for presumed notability. It meets NSPORT. So we allow the standalone, and one would have to challenge that at AFD to say its non-notable. But we expect that standalone can be improved with better sourcing, etc. over time; it's why we allow the standalone to give it the time (as there is no deadline. While people have clearly expanded out the college years here, they all use primary sources, and so to say this is an article that meets ITN quality is something to validly oppose on. --M asem  (t) 14:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. That which makes him notable must be demonstrated within the article with proper referencing.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is adequate. This is not AfD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support not great, but good enough. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd really like to see some decent sourcing. At the moment, we've got one lonely paragraph from the NYT.  The other NYT sources aren't about him, and everything else is local sports reporting. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a couple more sources and was able to expand the professional career section - Dumelow (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support no problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Cunliffe (author)

 * Support - Just above the threshold for inclusion. ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji

 * support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak support but can't we use a shorter form of his name? That's 28 letters when shorter forms exist, including the one used in his obituary. 1779Days (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kavanaugh nomination

 * Strong oppose Regardless of how this is affecting the nomination process, we do not post mere allegations not proven out in a court of law towards a BLP. --M asem (t) 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP is designed to protect lower-profile individuals from harm. We are not posting anything that you can miss, unless you are on Mars. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that we can't talk about the accusations on the nomationation page, but that is 100% not a reason to post at ITN. It would be different if he were on the bench already and was forced to step down if allegations were made. These judicial nomination processes bring out every skeleton in the closet, this is nothing different. --M asem  (t) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if suggested with the blurb without the allegations, I will oppose this based on the same rationale consensus came to when Kennedy announced his retirement (which was nominated but not posted, see ). The only point that may make sense to post anything is when a candidate is actually confirmed by the Senate, and even then, by the Kennedy nom above, that's even questionable if we'd post. --M asem (t) 16:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Understand your sentiment, but my main motivation for this is that BBC News lit up with a rolling feed, with reports of "People are saying where were you when the Kavanaugh hearing took place", and I thought "that's a bit odd". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is news sensationalism which we strongly avoid across the encyclopedia and especially at ITN. It's basically this generation's Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation all over again. A media circus but of little substance. --M asem (t) 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation" was a huge newsworthy event in 1991 that led to 1992 being called by some the "Year of the Woman". If Wikipedia existed in 1991, it should've been posted then. The "substance" is a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS and the fallout of it (Roe v. Wade). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had made the argument at Kennedy's retirement nomination that simply his departure with Trump controlling who gets nominated would impact past cases, like RvW - that didn't change consensus there. We're in the middle of a sensationalist story (the allegations causing the nomination process to rise to the top of the news), but WP is not a news ticker and we try avoid focusing on recentism. (not to mention how US-centric this story is at the moment). --M asem (t) 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (a) From 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. (b) WP:NOTNEWS is a policy about news stories as articles, that this passes. ITN absolutely is a news ticker, that's the whole purpose of it. That's why we post news stories to the main page, subject to article quality and consensus to post (which I'm sure this won't get). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been said many times, ITN is not a news ticker. In that we are not simply repeating what the top stories are in the world. We have very selective control on what gets posted, so it rarely reflects what a news ticker actually points out. Part of that selection is related to NOT#NEWS - we don't jump on every sensationalist story that might be top headlines.  --M asem  (t) 18:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles of sufficient quality that are in the news, and we fail at that so often because of the personal biases of the people who come here to vote on them. It's a shame. "Sensationalism" is defined (at least by me typing it into Google) as "the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement." Today's hearing is about searching for truth, so I could not disagree more with that label being used to describe this process. Having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS is a huge deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd clarify that a bit and say that having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS and which is documented in multiple, respected, reliable broadsheet news sources is a huge deal. I always thought the "sensationalist" bit meant you don't stick a blurb up based on the front page of The Sun or the National Enquirer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a burst of news coverage is sensationalism. It may not be tabloid-type sensationalism, but this is still basically elevating the relative importance of a story because there's little else to report on, the result of our 24/7 news media culture. WP doesn't follow that, we're looking for what comes out in the long-term. And since we have no idea if he will be confirmed or the accusations proven out, this is very much CRYSTAL-balling on importance. --M asem (t) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This "burst of news coverage" exists because much of the rest of the world likes to see what they see as the mess Donald Trump repeatedly seems to get himself into in areas where it's obvious he has no skills. This was the reason we in Australia also learnt this week that UN delegates laughed at him. Should we post that too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, there is no article entitled 2018 United Nations burst of laughter at Donald Trump, so no, we would not post that. There is an article entitled Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, so it's a story with a WP page that is attaining significant coverage. So yes, we should post it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Post when Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. Sca (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per article quality, per world wide attention. But I am also on the verge of thinking that this is a local story or at best national story. So I let others decide.BabbaQ (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to oppose based on it being a "local story or at best national story". That is most of the content we post. It's in the "Please do not's" above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, ITN is not for unproven allegations.SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per nom. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've put an alternative blurb which leaves out the "allegations" bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment @User:Ritchie333 I suggest you nominate this as an ongoing event rather than as a blurb as the above user mentions, it will be more fitting. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article appears to be of sufficient quality, but I don't believe the nomination of a Supreme Court judge would be considered globally newsworthy if it came from any nation other than America. Maybe if Kavanaugh was notable for something other than his nomination, but that is not the case.  At best, the only globally significant portion of his nomination will be his confirmation or rejection, and even then I'd disagree.  Therefore, I oppose.  (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
 * No requirement that it be "globally" newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's no there there.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the hearing right now. It's there, on my teevee. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news in a big way, highly reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which remains highly significant 27 years later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait. I would support if something really spectacular (like Kavanaugh withdrawing his candidacy) occurred. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per Black Kite. We almost never post stuff involving the internal politics of any given country unless it involves a change in head of state or government. However if Kavanaugh were to actually withdraw or be voted down by the Senate I might support a blurb given the remarkable level of global news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this maybe (likely not, given that it is a strictly domestic affair) merits posting if he takes the position. It probably merits posting if the allegations cause him to step down and withdraw, or are cited in a Senate vote which he loses. The existence of allegations is not worth posting on ITN, per, and is shaky in terms of WP:BLP. Awarding this gravitas because of decisions Kavanaugh might make if successfully confirmed by the Senate is clear crystal-balling, as is the converse (Kavanaugh withdrawing doesn't somehow enshrine Roe v. Wade). As such, there is no story on an ITN scale here unless the allegations are cited as a cause of Kavanaugh's failure to take the position. If they merely slow the process, then there is no story - just routine domestic politics. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is heavily in the news around the world, just look at media coverage from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and Australia reporting on everything that happens in that process. This might only be for a job on a court but it stands for so much more that the whole world is watching. Regards So  Why  18:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Times of India. As a general crude rule of thumb, anything getting headlines in the US, the UK and India (which, unless I'm mistaken - which I probably am - are the three nations that contribute most to the English Wikipedia) is worth considering as "worldwide". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not an elected position so it's not really "in the news" in the same sense that elections are. Furthermore, even Trump hasn't tweeted anything yet. w umbolo   ^^^  19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely "In The News" is anything that a) the news is reporting a lot of b) is in an article being updated a lot and c) the article is in good shape. So if there was blanket coverage of the Macadamia nuts controversy making a comeback, and featured on worldwide news for three days continuously, it would be a suitable nomination. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the news are reporting on the score of sport matches a lot, but we don't post matches before they are finished. w umbolo   ^^^  20:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - In the news worldwide, notable, and the article is in good shape. Opposers fail to convince me this should not be a blurb on ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb supporters fail to understand that posting ongoing items as blurbs when there is next to no breakthroughs is not how ITN works. Kirliator (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as ongoing . Will be worth posting a story if he is nominated or if the nomination is withdrawn. Until then it is all play by play coverage. However, there may be little chance of obtaining a concensus. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Post only if Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. These hearings are about the Supreme Court, not about what he did or didn't do in the past. Wikipedia is neither jury nor judge. Sca (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * These hearings have become about far more than just SCOTUS. USA Today: "The historic clash before the Judiciary Committee represented a signature moment for the year-old #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * did any of the accusers use the hashtag? w umbolo   ^^^  20:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that matter? Is that a requirement? Lindsey Graham just referenced Bill Cosby. The context cannot be denied. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe for an approved nomination but not the drama beforehand or if he is not approved.  Spencer T• C 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In spite of my opposition, if his nomination were not approved, that would arguably be more notable, as this nomination was originally thought to be a shoo-in due to a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.--WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. I doubt we'd post a story about a court case about a supreme court nominee for any other country in the world, so I don't see why this should be any different. Chrisclear (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why this line of reasoning is valid. I'm strongly in favor of posting different countries' stories to ITN, but this should not come at the expense of a U.S. story that is clearly getting lots of international coverage. Our primary job here is to bring things that are "in the news" to the front page, and many readers would appreciate a link to this story . Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply That's precisely the problem - the story is only getting "lots of international coverage" because it's about a US supreme court nominee. If there was a similar issue with a supreme court nominee in most other countries, there wouldn't be the same international coverage. It's likely (almost certain) that the story would not be supported for an ITN item due to lack of significance. This story shouldn't be considered any more significant simply because of the country involved. Publishing this story in ITN is the type of bias that ITN should be looking to avoid. Chrisclear (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose ...for precisely the same reasons as Chrisclear above. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is non-news blown up by MSM. Mikus (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looking through the revision history, Gorsuch's confirmation was not posted. That was a confirmation. This is a hearing, with the added element of further amplifying allegations. But I probably would support a blurb if it leads to the withdrawal of the nomination. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support Lots of international coverage, obviously an ongoing story, and article is in good shape and is regularly updated. Isn't that the point of ITN? Regardless, it looks like this nomination is not going anywhere; hopefully we can all agree that the result of the nomination should definitely be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? When did we last post a judicial appointment or rejection of a candidate for any other country? HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What was the last judicial nomination to demonstrate this much coverage in the source texts?-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I usually tend to ignore what seems a particularly silly part of the American political and legal processes. I just note the final score, i.e. how the balance of the court is at any given time. That's all that really matters in the end, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not when the nominee is an alleged sex criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to ignore unproven allegations too. Let's get real. Every one of these nominations seems to involve the digging of (or inventing) dirt on candidates nominated by political foes. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The news isn't ignoring it. And nobody "dug this up". Women who are assaulted have a lot of reasons not to come forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many things the news covers that we don't. And while I would probably agree with you about it, making judgements on guilt, and the motivations or otherwise of alleged victims is certainly not our job here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per Masem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait and post the outcome, whether confirmed or withdrawn. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this nom The appointment of a US Supreme Court justice is important, more so than some other countries. That's not bias, it's reality. If the media is rabidly covering something irrelevant, that's tabloid. The media rabidly covering something important is not. It's not important enough per se (IMO) to post to ITN. But the circumstances here elevate, and I think we should post a withdrawal/rejection. I'd oppose a confirmation. ghost 11:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ignaz Kirchner

 * Support. Good-looking article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted as the last slot was reported late. Stephen 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack McKinney

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Unsung head coach that ushered in the Showtime era for the Los Angeles Lakers, when they won five NBA titles in nine years.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Helena Almeida

 * Weak support - the article notes her first exhibition took place in 1967 and lists precisely one under the "Exhibitions" section, the Tate Modern this year, so that section looks wholly incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought about deleting it out entirely as the full list would likely be too long and not useful, but left it in. I have expanded it slightly - Dumelow (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * support - but just on the verge of Weak Support. I think it is ready for posting though.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Referenced start. Looks good to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not ready. The exhibition section is mostly unreferenced and I've also added a citation needed template to the Works section. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been through and readded references to the exhibitions. i deleted the sentence fragment without a reference as the section it was associated with was cited to an offline book - Dumelow (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. My objections have been resolved. Re-marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked stale, as the most recent RD is from 27 September. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Bill Cosby sentencing
Neutral When he was found guilty, I !voted oppose on the grounds that the sentencing is more significant than the verdict, but the response (and consensus) was that most people believed the other way around. The verdict was ultimately posted, and I don't know if ITN would support posting both. Personally, I maintain my belief that the sentence is significant, but I'm ready to be swayed one way or the other. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not an unusual sentence, and not particularly notable in its own right. This story is hitting during a busy news cycle.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Mainly because this is the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of a very long-running, high-profile case – this, in the context of heightened global interest in charges of sexual harassment and/or assault. Likely to be the No. 1 story on most mainstream Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong support – One of the most powerful men in entertainment is going to prison and the first to be criminally punished in the #MeToo era.--The lorax (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'm generally not a fan of celebrity true crime stories but this one has been getting global front page news coverage for a long time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose already been posted once, no long-term significance. At 3-10 years, the sentence isn't even that long. Banedon (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 10 years was the maximum sentence that could be given for this crime. The sentence is for 10 years, with a minimum of 3. His lawyers argued for house arrest because they think he'll die during any lengthy prison sentence. --M asem (t) 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That the maximum sentence isn't that long just means the crime shouldn't have been posted in the first place, though. Banedon (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – per fact that the trial has been covered by world media. Cosby is an actor at the top field of his profession and the article is in shape for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle because I feel this is a very slippery slope to go down with ITN. Cosby is the first "big name" to be sentenced in the #MeToo era, but I doubt he'll be the last. If we post this one and set a precedent for posting these convictions, I feel that that may take us into WP:TABLOID territory. Striker force Talk 21:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose already been posted once in April, no long-term significance. It is true that he was a iconic personality  who has fallen a long way.  But there is lots of other good stuff to put on the front page.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I feel the broader story here is significant, but not significant enough for two stories; we've posted the verdict, and so I don't know if I could justify posting this too. Vanamonde (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the most captivating part of the sentencing is that Bail was denied. So he did not just get to go home.  He was also characterized as a "sexually violent predator sex offender" by the court.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't even routinely post presidential inaugurations of major countries because we already post the elections. The result is not out of the ordinary, so it does not deserve to be posted twice. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Given that we posted the fact that he was convicted, the sentencing does not merit another separate blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to do this twice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jane Fortune

 * Support Article looks good, well done improving the references. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose publications are mainly unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I normally assume publication lists are self-verifying, but in any case I have now added some refs to the publications. Some of them are just chapters or booklets but their existence is proven at least - Dumelow (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't make that assumption. Anyone could write a list of completely fictional papers, essays etc with no links and no evidence of their existence beyond their name, it directly fails WP:V.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - per further updates. BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gary Kurtz

 * Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a huge awards section, a BLP violation in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article simply does not have enough citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought of nominating this when I read of his death, but the article quality is too poor and unlikely to be sufficiently improved before the death becomes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on merit A quick scroll-through of the article shows that there's quite a few paragraphs that could benefit from additional sources. If this is resolved in the next couple of days, please ping me and I'll switch my !vote to support. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "support on merit" for RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why I led with oppose. It was added to clarify that I'd gladly flip if and when the involved editors improve the article. Unnecessary to point that out, as it should be self explanatory. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what was unnecessary was to say "support on merit". All RDs are supported "on merit".  Read the template.  That should be self explanatory.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I maintain that it really isn't necessary to make this a sub-discussion deviating from the actual discussion. Relax. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maintain away, but next time there's no need to "support on merit", it's taken as read. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -basically per above mentioned reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on merit per Brendon the Wizard. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note, there is no purpose to supporting "on merit". Per established ITNC policy, every living entity with a name with a quality Wikipedia article who dies gets on the RD feed.  All that matters is the "quality" part.  The "merit" is "was once alive, has recently died, and has a Wikipedia article".  (also note, human is not even required.  Just "died and has an article" is all the merit necessary).   -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware of how we handle RDs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you would know that "on merit" is redundant.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They're something in the air... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt. We don't know what it is, but it gives TRM the irresistible urge to constantly play hall monitor. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just trying to remind some of you that you're wasting time with such remarks as they are guaranteed to draw comment from multiple editors. So well played!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good thinking. Why craft your own comment when mine was so perfect? Lepricavark (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was convenient as I was spending a lot of my time improving Wikipedia for our readers' benefit, wink wink! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, in fairness to TRM, the word 'multiple' meant the prophecy was not guaranteed to be self-fulfilling, even if I'm being an unforgiveable pedant by saying so - and I'm also seemingly saying something in defense of TRM, which is presumably seemingly even more unforgiveable (even tho I'm actually pointing out that his above guarantee is distinctly unimpressive) .Tlhslobus (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you are aware of the policy, but posted the comment anyway. Why? Are we just trying to trigger TRM's OCD now? I mean, we all know The Boat Race is irrelevant, but it would be off topic to bring it up in every discussion. ghost 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a textbook WP:POINT edit. But it's fine because it tells us everything we need to know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You call it POINTiness, I call it pushback against your unwarranted rudeness to another editor in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, whether you like it or not. And stating an absolute fact is not equivalent to "unwarranted rudeness" so please don't use hyperbolic argument in an attempt to your disruptive behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You complain about the disruption while continuing to prolong the conversation. Take a look in the mirror. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You should have admitted fault and retracted your pointed edit to start with. The fault resides 100% with you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Questions If in future I wanted to say what Brendon the Wizard seems to have been trying to say above, what brief expression(s) might best achieve this in a way that avoids disruption of the kind seen above? And might such an expression usefully be added to our above RD instructions? (Note: Please keep any answers here very brief, as, at least in theory, this isn't really the right forum for this, and any lengthy discussion would presumably have to be moved somewhere else and quite likely would be more hassle than it's worth). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My own suggestion would be Oppose on quality, but well worth fixing (but far too soon to add it to RD instructions) - but has anybody got any better suggestion(s)?Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is this: "Oppose on quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sir Michael Atiyah claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis

 * Oppose Any proposed solution to problems like this is going to be thoroughly reviewed by the math community to verify if it is true or not. On that confirmation, we should post. --M asem (t) 23:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've struck my remarks on crack-pottery; more reliable sources confirm that Sir Atiyah is giving a talk on this topic tomorrow.  It's absolutely premature to post anything until after the talk. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has not yet delivered the presentation, let alone had the claim accepted by the mathematics community. A claim of this kind on its own should not be posted. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Maldivian presidential election, 2018

 * Support -- Even if its small size was a negative consideration, the result has wider geopolitical ramifications that affect the wider Indo-Pacific region. Also comes relatively unexpected as the election was anticipated to be unfree and unfair, so the result represents a bucking of the "authoritarian turn" that has characterised global politics in the past few years. -- Varavour (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No prose describing the elections themselves, their results, and the effects. Article needs expansion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Change of head of state is in ITNR. While the article covers necessary points, it would be better if it could even still be expanded a bit more.Amir (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Though I'd like it if the article was longer, all of the subsections contain only sourced information, so it's certainly not in bad shape. I'm not finding any major WP:MOS concerns. My only recommendation is to expand the conduct section to better describe each event, provide more background information about the candidates and what they focused their campaigns on, and it should be a fine article. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per ITN/R. article is Ok.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles K. Kao

 * Support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Last section (Later Life & Dementia) needs rewrite. Also his death was not even mentioned in the article save in infobox. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The Honours and awards section has a lot of unsourced listings. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several of the listed awards lack citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - just above the threshold for inclusion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This has been improved. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 10:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Labinjo

 * Support looks good. ghost 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail

 * Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Entire sections are unreferenced. But it seems this story is getting much more coverage worldwide than the I95. Still, far from ready by ITN standards. --Tone 14:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course a 2,230 km 350 kph train line capable of 380 (longest high speed line in the world) is more impressive than a 3,100km motorway where you can't exceed ~137 without the police fining you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tentative support: I haven't been following these news, and I was pleasantly surprised. This is quite a major development; article quality at the moment is indeed far from ready, let me see if I can have a shot at it. Alex Shih (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Massive infrastructural news and a highly noteworthy achievement. Posting is most certainly warranted as this is an underrepresented region on ITN. WaltCip (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you could just let me know where the WP:ITN criteria stipulates favoring an "underrepresented region" that'd be great. I'm wondering what region, specifically, and what the criteria for "under-represented" is, given the Philippines land slide currently in the box, and the SE Asian stories recently in the box: a Japanese earthquake, an Indian supreme court ruling, typhoon Mangkhut, the Pakistani president, the Reuters journalists in Myanmar, typhoon Jebi, and a hotel fire in Harbin. Indeed, it would appear this region is perhaps over-represented? Who's to say without criteria, so just let me know what those are please. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In defense of SE Asian countries, the only time anyone reads about these in ITN is during an 1) election, 2) disaster. That's it, barring unforeseen planets aligning and people here supporting the ASEAN Football Championship later this year. We even have ITNR items for countries such as Ireland (2, in fact!), while Singapore, a country that is more populous than the former, has a big fat zero ITNR items. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support incredible project Openlydialectic (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on refs. Also, this seems to be a rather small section of a larger system that has been open for years. The political element may make it blurb-worthy, but lets not goose the numbers to make this look like a bigger project than it is. ghost 11:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom: the main article is actually the "Hong Kong section", not the rail line at large; we've definitely posted ferry disasters and earthquakes with articles of lessor quality. The "Hong Kong section" article, imo, is ready for the main page. In any case this is growing stale so would an admin please post it or close the discussion? Colipon+ (Talk) 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support A large-scale project that went through more than a decade of planning and construction. It helps that it's getting international coverage as well, which demonstrates its significance outside of Hong Kong. As much as I'd like it if the article were longer, it's no stub and no red flags stand out. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A) The Hong Kong section is very short, and as such should be tip-top. There remain unreferenced statements of fact. B) If the completion of the larger system is the blurbworthy event, its article needs targeted. If we are to target the Hong Kong section, it is inappropriate to support its significance by citing the size of the whole system (which every supporting editor here has done). This is the same thing as the I-95: the larger system has been operable for years, while the recent developments are trivial. ghost 11:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The controversy around the Hong Kong section is still recent; that surrounding the section of I-95 in New Jersey is decades' old. Hardly the same. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edna Molewa

 * Oppose Some sentences remain unsourced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is well-sourced. 07:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Overall, the sourcing is adequate for ITN. Article is well-written. AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until the tags have been addressed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Don't see the fact tags; maybe fixed? There is one CN left but it does not seem substantial. ghost 16:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Interstate 95 completed

 * Comment: Levittown Now confirms that the ramps opened this earlier this morning. Other sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Bucks County Courier Times, WPVI-TV and KYW (AM) reported the project completion's significance earlier this week in announcing the scheduled opening. FHWA confirms that this is the last project to be completed under the auspices of the 1956 legislation.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment for those wondering why this is significant, I-95 facilitates 40% of the United States' GDP and serves 110 million people. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this isn't just any highway opening, but arguably the most significant one in the US. --Rschen7754 18:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nice bit of road trivia but not much more. See DYK.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the most important motorway in the US and one of the most important in the world, serving (as mentioned before) 110 million people, Canada's most important highway, Harvard, the UN and New York (the only city that rivals London in importance), the capital of the world's most powerful country, 15 states and the so called Capital of Latin America (Miami, 71% Latin Americans, metro population 6 or 7 million). It has the busiest motor bridge in the world, most lanes on a bridge in the world (14 non-shoulder lanes on 2 floors) and approaching New York from the south it reaches 14 lanes and 8 shoulders with quadruple carriageways (and 2 jumbo jet runways hug the 22 lanes for awhile which is pretty cool). Also nearby are Yale, Princeton, Columbia University, 6 of 8 Ivy League unis, site of declaring independence from you (no hard feelings), the capital of the slave country..
 * At over 3,000 kilometers it's so long it starts where -41°C and 1.8 meters of snow depth and 4.2 meters snow in a year happens and ends in the tropics south of some Bahamas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And the law of 1956 was to build 41,000 miles of motorway with minimum 2 lanes in each direction which ended up costing 500 billion today dollars. Even Canada and Australia are mostly 1 lane in each direction when you cross the country cause Interstate highway standards are expensive. (Germany has much better roads but they have 5.5 times higher population density) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * New York is "the only city that rivals London in importance"? The U.S. is the "world's most powerful country"? Are you high? London is "only rivalled by New York"? What about Beijing? Moscow? Berlin? Paris? Given Britain is being absolutely screwed right this minute in negotiations with the EU, the "importance" of London is not apparent right now. You do realise we aren't in the Age of Discovery anymore and the British Empire has been dead for literally decades? When you have to talk such delusional anglocentric bullshit to support your argument you serve only to discredit them. AusLondonder (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, back in 1970s, historians like Correlli Barnett wrote books on the decline of Britain. None imagined how much further it still had to go.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Global city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I see a lot of interesting trivia there, but nothing that sways me from oppose. Get it to GA or FA and go to the main page some other way.  It's not "in the news" because it's not really that newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Britain is declining to barely match the global power of a nation like Italy. Suggesting that if it wasn't for New York City London would be the "unrivalled" capital of the world would make even the staunchest Eurosceptic Little Englander blush. AusLondonder (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Confusing prose like "yet its completion is still dependent on a project in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that was finished in September 22, 2018" (is it completed or isn't it?) and lots of unsourced sections. If the most significant source we've got is Levitton Now (as opposed to, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post) then I don't think it indicates worldwide significance. As TRM says, take it to DYK. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * as noted above, Levittown Now is only confirming the actual opening this morning. The other press covered the dedication yesterday with the amorphous "will open tomorrow" style of wording, which as we should know, didn't guarantee that the barricades on the unopened ramps would actually come down as planned. I did find a few sentences that needed updating, and those have been changed. Other coverage came in major media outlets earlier this year in anticipation of today, such as The Atlantic back in January, Bloomberg (linked by The Ed17), [: https://www.fastcompany.com/90221669/interstate-95-is-finally-finished-and-so-is-our-era-of-ambitious-infrastructure-projects Fast Company] ("Interstate 95 is finally finished—and so is our era of ambitious infrastructure projects"), so this isn't not getting major press. More cites coming in the article for the RD sections totally unrelated to what happened today as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely if it was that big a deal, we'd see Trump gobbing off on Twitter about "Hey, we got I-95 completed, while Hillary and Obama couldn't even get started! SAD!" or something like that.... (or perhaps he does, I don't read his feed for my own sanity) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – On lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support this in terms of significance, we've posted other rail line and freeway stories, I-95 is the big dog on the eastern seaboard -- the referencing is not up to scratch for MP feature, however. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fairly interesting, but better suited to DYK then ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – As the last section of the original Interstate Highway System, which has had a profound impact on the United States and influenced similar systems globally, interest can be drawn from beyond the niche of road scholars. (Support comes with the caveat that the referencing in I-95's article is improved)  Sounder Bruce  01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No demonstration of widespread coverage in non-U.S. sources. As to LaserLegs' WP:OSE remark, we posted the opening of the Wuhan–Guangzhou high-speed railway in December 2009 because it was both a new world record for commercial train service and a landmark in China Railway High-speed history itself, being the first cross-regional HSR line. The only thing "new" with the completion of I-95 is the relevant section in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose excessive coverage of local New Jersey road construction. "Completed" borders on puffery here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a significant infrastructure project but is struggling to attract attention in the United States. Unfortunately not suitable for DYK as it is not a new article or been substantially increased in size. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Interstate 95 is ineligible for DYK because it was featured on DYK back in 2013, but you could take Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project to GA and then run it on DYK. That's what GA is for.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Throw WikiProject U.S. Roads a bone.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose No global significance. Roads serving enormous populations in India and China open practically every day. Barely actually "in the news", even in the U.S. AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chas Hodges

 * Support - got edit conflicted nominating this, but as Ritchie333 has put the work in he deserves the credit anyway. Article has had recent improvement and tags are now gone. Good to go. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bibliography section doesn't have source. "Bibliography" typifies quirkiness of English; so due to lack of source we've to even ask, are those books by him or about him ? Either way they need source before this see Mainpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much the results window from typing "Chas Hodges" into Google Books ... but inline citations added nonetheless. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. This is OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done Ritchie333. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Nice work. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Iranian military parade attack

 * Support in principle – pending article expansion. Unusual for Iran. Possibly an indicator of political unrest. Sca (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks developed for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Quite not there, it's basically a stub. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support support, basic info is there, no doubt about notability Openlydialectic (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody talk of notability. It's still in stubby state. I just removed large copyvio further shrinking it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support A significant and developing event. -- M h hossein   talk 16:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose if nine sentences (including two in the lead) is all we have to say about this event, it's either (a) not ready or (b) not newsworthy or (c) both. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support it's stubby, WP:RS can't agree on the details right now. The targets and venue are significant, no random act of violence, or arson, or sinking here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Significant but stub. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: firing to civilian, kiling children, reporting by many reliable sources.Saff V. (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Per nominator.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) / Pikazilla (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: notable event. Substantial work was done on the article, although more eyes (and pens) are welcome. Wakari07 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still rather thin. Rouhani’s allegation of U.S. responsibility could be added. Sca (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's about the same as Khamenei's. Did you see Rudy Giuliani's ? Wakari07 (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Vatican announces deal with China on bishop appointments
Comment There's currently an error in the nom's comment. When I was a child over half a century ago Catholicism was indeed "the most populous religion in the world", but it got overtaken by Islam a long time ago, so now Christianity is "the most populous religion in the world". Incidentally, Christianity should supposedly "soon" (whatever that means) be overtaken by Islam, and China by India. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Catholics are outnumbered by Sunnis alone but the Catholic Church amazingly appears to be the world's largest denomination, possibly even if counting "not affiliated with a religion" as a denomination. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that may depend on who's defining 'denomination' (for instance who decides Sunnis are not a denomination?). As for the unaffiliated, I think anybody can divide them into all sorts of 'denominations' (atheists, agnostics, unaffiliated theists, etc). But I guess none of this is all that relevant to this nom, so I'll try to avoid saying any more on the subject.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs target We can't evaluate the nom without a target. It seems unlikely this event would be important enough for any of the three articles linked. ghost 15:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point - The target seems to be Catholic Church in China, but it's not in the blurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose would be a great DYK, otherwise it's just parochial religious claptrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not parochial, China is a very major country and 1.2 billion belong to this church (world's most popular denomination (more populous than all entire religions except Islam and tied with "no religion"), was a major world religion for over 1.7 millennia (the 34% of world history since 313 AD) and dominated Western culture and Western culture west of about Soviets/Romanians/Serbs for 0.7 and 1.15 millennia respectively. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of your facts seem a little dodgy, but I think you're 100% right that it's not parochial.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability per above arguments by nom + Sagittarian Milky Way (they are broadly correct even if they seem wrong in some details). But, as ghost has pointed out, we currently have no proper target article to assess for quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment For accuracy's sake, the blurb should say that they were appointed by the Chinese legislature (of which 861 seats are not the Communist Party of China) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - on notability as well. Perhaps Vatican State or similar would be the best article.BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As already mentioned, the nom's intended target seems to be Catholic Church in China, but it's not in any of the blurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added that as target, but it needs work. ghost 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ghost. I've changed the target to the relevant subsection of that article and added the target to all the blurbs. I'm not yet sure which blurb is most accurate, but if yours is, as I suspect, it might be a good idea to move it to the main blurb and drop the former main blurb to altblurb4.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The original blurbs seem very misleading (and originally had no target) so I've moved them to the back, added your blurb as main blurb, and added altblurb1 as your blurb plus the words 'and veto'. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and uniqueness (?); China is the first communist country to do so, yes? — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely notable, but I'd be a bit surprised if the new arrangement itself is unique even for today's Communist regimes, let alone for some of the past ones. On the other hand the division of the Chinese Catholic Church into 'patriotic' (party-approved) and 'underground' (party-resisting) Churches may well be unique, and even if not unique (for instance I know nothing about the position of the Catholic Churches in North Korea, Indochina, etc) it may well be uniquely large (and perhaps also uniquely long-lived) for such churches, and thus moves towards ending this state of affairs may well be unique, and are certainly notable.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support on merits. This is huge news in the world of religion. But sadly I must Oppose on article quality which is no where near acceptable for the main page. Referencing is dreadful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now mentioned it needs more work to make ITN on its Talk Page, and at 3 Wikprojects mentioned there (China, Catholicism, and Christianity in China). Perhaps that will bring in a few editors. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have added the template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But China–Holy See relations seems to me to be in much better shape, tho I'm not a very good judge of such matters. Perhaps some better judge might have a look at it, to see if it (and the relevant section within it) would make a better target, or at least one easier to bring up to scratch (it's much shorter and seemingly much better referenced).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (But even if it doesn't make a better target it may at least be a useful source of new references, and I've now mentioned this at Talk).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vitaliy Masol

 * Comment – Suggest article include date of death. Sca (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is now sourced, including deathdate. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article fully sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * → Looks OK for RD. Sca (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I added a source that states he died specifically on 21 September, which seemed to be absent in the other sources. Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Death of Trần Đại Quang

 * Oppose on quality. The death of a sitting head of state while they held office is definitely blurb material, but the article has some unsourced paragraphs and the like. --M asem (t) 05:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah.. sitting head of state, definitely. I'll try some cleanup. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support He is only technically the head of state. Vietnam is a communist country, and all power is concentrated in the hands of Nguyễn Phú Trọng who is the general secretary. Plus, the quality of the article is not all that good. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President. The balance of power vary based on who's in power, but the GenSec doesn't have "all power". DHN (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * >Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Source: "Vietnam has no paramount ruler and is officially led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief, although experts say the presidency is more ceremonial than the other posts." DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a weight against significance, so if his article was a postmortem stub I'd be opposed. As it is now, I think we should post this when quality issues are addressed. ghost 12:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Possible blurb material as it will impact the balance of power and there has been a cloud over his health for some time. Some of the honours appear to be unreferenced which is the main concern. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to oppose on article quality issues.
 * RD only – Marginal notability. Sca (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Referencing is quite poor. Far too many paragraphs have only a single ref for multiple claims of fact and some have none at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only the very first paragraph of this article contains the statement that someone else was actually the de facto leader of Vietnam, so I don't think we should post this just because he was technically the head of state. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is he was the sitting head of state.  While the role is ceremonial much like the role in parliamentary systems, he is actually probably more powerful than the president in those countries, since "Vietnam is led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief". DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he was the ceremonial head of state while the power actually rested elsewhere. So no, I am not changing my mind. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Would the same then hold true for the queen of England for example? She is a ceremonial head of state and has little to no power, perhaps even less power than this office affords. No blurb for her either on death or would that be different for some reason? 85.16.229.157 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously that would be different, for the blindingly obvious reason that QE2 is the head of state of sixteen countries, not to mention the former head of state of sixteen more, the longest-reigning British monarch (which goes back over 1,100 years), is one of the most recognised people in the world ... but you know all that. It's a ridiculous comparison. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * RD only - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Not well enough sourced, a lot of it is just bullet points ... peacock writing ("He is very well known for his hard work, dedication, composure and calm qualities"), general grammar and writing issues, but more importantly I picked a random sentence (" Welcoming Israeli Ambassador Nadav Eshcar, President Quang expressed his delight over the sound development of co-operative ties between the two countries, as demonstrated by President Reuven Ruvi Rivlin’s State visit to Vietnam in March") only to find that it's a straight copy from this news article.  Elsewhere, "Tran Dai Quang made the statement at a meeting with a delegation of 87 outstanding HCMCYU members who won the Ly Tu Trong Award 2018 in Hanoi" is a straight copy from here but actually makes no sense whatsoever because the previous sentence in the news article hasn't been included (the question is "What statement?").  There is also copying and/or close paraphrasing from here, here, etc. etc. Copyvios on the main page - ain't happening. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on quality. The "Education" and "Political career" sections are bad but fairly easily fixable.  "Minister of Public Security" and "Presidency" are a list of press-clippings; someone familiar with Vietnamese politics will need to edit those down.  The whole thing has an ESL tone to it as well. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I have blanked the article as a copyright violation, which the vast majority of it is. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) International relations

 * Oppose target article is not even in blurb, target article does not mention this information. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Nothing yet to affect the progress of Brexit. --M asem (t) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron and also unclear significance. Does this mean Brexit is off? A "Hard Brexit"? Just a negotiating tactic? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – More Brexit blather. Sca (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: K-Run's Park Me In First

 * Comment: The date of death is not referenced and is not mentioned in the text of the article. Otherwise it looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the dog actually dead? There seems to be no source in the article that supports that claim. Also a procedural question - the dog is referred to, thoughout the article, by it's alternative name "Uno". Would this be a better name to use for the RD item? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is from the Associated Press and is the first reference in the article - looks reliable. The death does need to be added to the main body of the article though, not just the infobox.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see it now, thanks. Is there any policy on having to use full names at RD, for dogs or for people? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At first I couldn't find the actual date of death mentioned in that Fox article but see it is buried away in one of the photo captions - Dumelow (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing a show dog at ITN/C before - we've had racehorses and the occasional mayor of a small town, but if this were posted we might go with the shorter name for space reasons - I don't think there'a any rule against piping it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That Fox News article mentions his full name, but calls him Uno. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that reader recognition and brevity are the interests at hand in picking the name. It would seem Uno is not an option here, but I don't think we can lop off the kennel either. Absent a better solution, I suggest ignoring the nom until it goes stale. ghost 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems unnecessary. I'm sure an admin could figure something out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just being facetious. And an admin did! "Uno (dog)" is a perfect solution. ghost 16:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder could you explain why Uno is "not an option here"? As far as recognition is concerned, I'd suggest that, for most readers, both would be equally unrecognizable. One just takes up a lot more space. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the dog's common name would not be known to the general public. If that is not true, Uno would certainly be fine. ghost 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Notwithstanding the odd title the article appears to be adequately referenced and I can't see a reason for not supporting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient depth and is well referenced. Death is reported in reliable sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I thought the article update requirement meant they should be used to support a clear prose statement somewhere in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is unclear about the prose statement "Uno died, at the age of 13, of cancer on September 20, 2018." It has been in the article since 15:29, September 24, 2018.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest nothing. I must have missed that addition, which was made about an hour before you posted. Thanks User:Fuebaey, for adding it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggesting Uno (dog). Would go with the full name on April 1 because of the name but not on a regular day. If I see some support for this suggestion, ready to post. --Tone 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that suggestion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support this is good to go but suggest unless the page is moved because it's agreed Uno is the common name, we should stick with the article title. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that a matter of preference or policy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it's a matter of common sense. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Moving the article to the common name seems reasonable. I'll wait with posting until we decide what to do. --Tone 16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way (I oppose animal RDs generally), but this is getting real close to stale, if that matters at all. ghost 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * By my reckoning he's still got a few days to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) MV Nyerere sinking

 *  'Oppose... ' for now. Stub. Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I see the article is getting expanded, looks sufficient to me now, though more work is always welcome. --Tone 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is no longer a stub and the article looks to be in good-enough condition. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * → Text is up to 270 words, which still seems minimal for an incident that caused at least 136 deaths and possibly many more. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Support It's been expanded and is now minimally sufficient for posting. Likewise referencing is adequate. Hopefully work will continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support – Ditto. Notable disaster. Sca (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - And seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - after some copy-editing, expansion and additional referencing, this seems ready to go. Significance goes without saying. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is customary to include some information about the location of an event in blurbs. May I suggest something like "Tanzanian ferry MV Nyerere capsizes..."? It makes more sense to me than "a boat". Isa (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did change "boat" to "ferry" when I posted, but adding the location is a great idea that has done. Thanks all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Inge Feltrinelli

 * Support. Referenced article. 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Not that good, but not that bad either. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * weak support - not great. But adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support Good on reference, but could use expansion. Good though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Naga City, Cebu landslide

 * Weak support Barely above a stub, but still on the right side of the line IMHO, well referenced. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This one is fine. There really isn't a whole lot to say about the event itself, but it is still a significant story due to the deaths. No glaring omissions or other major problems with the article. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This looks okay. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marilyn Lloyd

 * Support Seems to be nicely referenced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bunny Carr

 * I added everything I could find in the obituaries. Hopefully it is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - indeed, ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good sources, redlinks removed, and this article should be ready for RD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have marked this one as ready based on the above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Geta Brătescu

 * Oppose - Why even nomimate articles that are not ready. People will simply oppose.BabbaQ (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet opposing, but I've to disagree, it isn't "well sourced." –Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose How is this article "well-sourced?" The "Writings" section has no sources. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose referencing is very much substandard; most of the biography section has no clear sources, the writing section has none at all, etc. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Burge

 * Comment: Whilst a good article there are a couple of points (and a whole paragraph) that need citing and there is an "as of June 2008" that could use updating. I have tagged the relevant passages - Dumelow (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed up the issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work TDKR Chicago 101. There is one paragraph left uncited, the first one of the "Culture of violence" section.  Otherwise I would support - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had logged off for the day. Just to confirm my post-posting support on this one - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Could the lead be shortened/restructured? 8 paragraphs (fair enough some of them are very short) is excessive. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done to the best of my ability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I re-added a bit of detail that you removed, but the number of paragraphs is now 4, thanks. I don't think there are other issues, so I support. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Barrett (journalist)

 * Oppose uncategorised stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article will need expanding. I was very surprised not to find one about him. I just don't have the time today to do more than I already have. Striker force Talk 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was I supposed to not comment here until you were personally ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that. I was just putting it out there that the article will be longer soon enough and that you may want to reconsider your !vote at that time. Striker force Talk 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I often reconsider my position, and I have this page watchlisted and contribute regularly. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Stub but I acknowledge nominator's need to expand. Also there are three sections with only one sentence each. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article. Based on the criteria for such, I believe that it meets "C" class and have assessed it as such. Happy to hear suggestions for improvement. Pinging, , , and for additional consideration.  Striker force Talk 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing work has now been done. Well done Strikerforce. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arthur Mitchell (dancer)

 * Oppose more than just the tags to take care of. Not good enough for a BLP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I used the obituary more. Please mark where you think a citation is needed. It would be a shame not to mention such a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added citations to the awards. If we can't source the honorary doctors, we could skip them for now. Out for the day. The more I read about him, the more I think he deserves a blurb, - countering bias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support RD for its current quality. I would currently oppose a blurb, in part because of the article's quality. Regardless of its quality, I do not know if this guy's significance warrants a blurb, though his death is indeed in international news and definitely makes an interesting headline (per point 3 and 4 of the ITN purpose). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Denis Norden

 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose with regret. Poor article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I wanted to nominate this last night but the referencing was too far below acceptable standards. I posted a tag on it which I see others have added to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 China–United States trade war

 * Oppose, this is a very slow moving, long-term story not even suited for ongoing because we have no idea when it will be resolved and is not the type of story that has daily happened. Further, The $260B appears to be the sum of the US's tariffs over three different points this year, not one mass sum, and that doesn't include anything China may have imposed.  --M asem  (t) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The $260B in this suggestion refers to the $200B US tariffs and the $60B Chinese retaliation from the past 2 days. Coincidentally this does match the total US tariffs this year. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose we can’t post every single action and retaliation of the trade war onto ITN. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true, but we should consider the worthiness of singular events within a larger ongoing event. We've posted a great many items to ITN about the Syrian Civil War, for example. 260B is a big number, I've no idea if it's significant in this context. ghost 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, story is certainly "in the news", the trade war involves the worlds two largest economies, impact felt on both sides, and unlike a bi-lateral trade agreement, this is a tit-for-tat application of tariffs imposed (on the U.S. side at least) with dubious legality. Bolsonaro was stabbed two weeks ago, I think it's ok for that blurb to roll off. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose as Masem mentions above, this is a slow story about heated rhetoric, effects are notable and will definitely lead to long-term consequences in the long run, but ultimately this is more-or-less a repeat of similar announcements and counter-attacks made by the two world powers in the previous months. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is small potatoes and we really don't need to cover each and every minuscule change that Trump implements at ITN. Honestly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Niche story for economists to argue over and speculate. No impact on general readers, not ITN worthy.. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well general readers in the USA (by far the largest share of en-wiki readers) actually are impacted, by 10%, on goods imported from China. The Chinese are impacted too, since ... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, prices just went up 10% today, of course they did!! And you have no idea how this impacts the Chinese.  So I'd stop this speculative line.  It's getting to be mildly embarrassing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am not an economist, but based on my semi-informed opinion, the overall impact of this and thus the newsworthiness is limited and minuscule.--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you don't actually know what you're saying, but you're opposing anyway? Talk about bias. If $260 billion is minuscule, almost everything we post in ITN is minuscule. FIFA is expected to rake in about $6 billion in revenue from the 2018 World Cup, up 25 percent from the previous tournament. Next time, we should wait until 40 world cups go by before posting. Banedon (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yawn. WP:POINT.  Next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Sounds like a broken record (as we used to say in the days of vinyl) . Ongoing? Sca (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Robert Venturi

 * Oppose, with regret. Definitely influential, but the article isn't in good enough shape for the main page. It would be tricky to not only fill in citations for the body of the article, but also to cite all of the structures that he built. Teemu08 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David DiChiera

 * Oppose - several sections completely unsourced. Ping me if it will be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Marceline Loridan-Ivens

 * Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose one sentence? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article only has two sentences of content. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This was previously closed per WP:SNOW but has been reopened because it has been de-stubbed by expanding from the French article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing special but reaches the minimum level for inclusion. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good work expanding this FoxyGrampa75. I think it needs just a little more to get it over the line.  It is missing references for two passages in the biography section and there are no references for the filmography or awards sections.  The grammar could do a check over too: "who emigrated to France since 1919"; " Edgar Morin casted her in the film Chronique d'un été"; "She assisted her in her work and co-directed some of his films".  There is also no mention of her death in the article aside from the date in brackets at the top - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of issues. Multiple unreferenced sections and unsourced statements in referenced ones. Reference to unreliable French Wikipedia everywhere and incomplete references like "Voir, Klarsfeld, 2012.". I commend whoever destubbed it, but it's not yet ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some improvements to the article -- . is there anything else to take care of, and do I have to delink the redlinks? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Filmography and Awards need referencing, especially where there is no article. Red links are not a problem. Stephen 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find more info about the incomplete reference I said. I hope it was not just copied directly from French Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Steve Adlard

 * Oppose Yes it is a stub, but not as bad as Marceline Loridan-Ivens, nonetheless needs expanding. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article barely established the importance of its subject; it is far too short to be placed on the Main Page. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stub. Sca (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jean Piat

 * Oppose Article has no sources not even a reference section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP violation hell. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article has no sources whatsoever. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Text = 100-word stub. Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Norifumi Yamamoto

 * Oppose - for now. Several sections without sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs reference work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are several sections that lack references. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena

 * Support article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 70th Primetime Emmy Awards

 * Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will, as I have done the same time each year for the past three years for these navel-gazing award shows. Each year they have received substandard updates and failed to be posted. This combined with their steadily declining viewership simply asserts to me their lack of relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If attempts to get it removed from ITNR have failed three years in a row, that would seem to show that there is even less excuse for raising non-quality objections to this ITNR item here.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard.  There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc.  It's just a bunch of tables with no context.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is virtually just skin and bones in terms of content: just a standard introductory paragraph and a table of the awards and winners. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip. Just not that important anymore. Lepricavark (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Both your !vote and WaltCip's should presumably be ignored as opposing an ITNR item on grounds other than quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But you aren't exactly ignoring our !votes, are you? Since you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, I would have to take a look at ITNR to see whether it disallows such opposes. And frankly, I don't care if it does. My !vote stands. Lepricavark (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR and as such should not be opposed on the merits. If you feel it should not be ITNR, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at WP:ITN/R. The box at the very top of the page labels it a guideline, not a policy, and explicitly allows for "occasional exceptions." That quoted phrase is wikilinked to WP:IAR. My !vote is valid. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument to not post is that the awards as a whole are not that important anymore. While there may be validity in that, that is not discussing this specific instance, but instead the class as a whole. That argument goes to ITNR. --M asem (t) 01:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In case my initial post was not sufficiently clear, I will state for the record that I do not consider the 2018 Emmys to be significant enough to merit a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lepricavark. Although it would actually be up to the posting admin to decide (if the article ever achieves posting quality, which would rather surprise me), my own guess is that your !vote at least arguably became valid as soon as you mentioned WP:IAR. This seems to have possibly important implications for both ITNR and ITNRD, and (although strictly speaking this isn't a truly new situation) it might perhaps be worth starting a discussion about such implications (perhaps at the ITNC Talk page, and perhaps pinging everybody involved in this nom). I may or may not try to start such a discussion myself, but definitely not just yet, but perhaps some other editor(s) might wish to start one anyway without waiting for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose given the lack of article prose. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Following up on Lepricavark's justification, TV ratings for 2018 Emmy's are the lowest on record. An 11% drop from 2017.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enzo Calzaghe
I expanded it a little and improved the referencing. It's not perfect but I think it meets the standard now - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this isn't the sourcing, it's that the "Boxing" section, which let's face it is what he's notable for, is so small. There's no prose on the majority of fighters who he coached to fame. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Best

 * Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 00:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement

 * Oppose unusual isn't sufficient to include an article here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We tend to not post sport retirements, unusual or not. Eventually, for super-high-profile athletes, one could argue. But probably not in this case. --Tone 21:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the widespread top-level news coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just putting it out there for consideration. I won't be offended if it snow closes. :)  Striker force Talk 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally support occasional nominations that are interesting ;) Though this one will probably be closed soon. --Tone 21:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Certainly unusual, but sadly someone who 95% of the world's population have never heard of isn't going to make ITN for this. Shame really, because the article is really good and far better than most of the stuff that ends up getting linked to the Main Page.  Which makes me think - it can't be far off a GA, and it'd make a good DYK hook ... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose article is pretty good, few missing refs in his background. ESPN screamed about this for an hour while I was getting my oil changed today. Oppose because Davis seems to be a reasonable but not outstanding player (I'm happy to be corrected) and wasn't really a household name before this event. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is definitely not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James B. Thayer

 * Support Only the KISS website/social media seems to be mentioning this as of yet, but the article is up to scratch. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a report of his death from an reliable source other than the Kiss website. Article is well-referenced so is good to go once we have a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added a ref to Tommy Thayer's twitter announcing the death. I don't like to rely on social media too much but I think it is appropriate here - Dumelow (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see The Oregonian has just covered it so I have added that ref also - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted. I edit-conflicted with Dumelow adding the exact same Oregonian reference. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie

 * Comment okay, I'm not done, but it's good enough for government work. Please review suitability for inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record
see: c:Category:Berlin-Marathon 2018 --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well.  Spencer T• C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc.  I think Berlin is well known enough.  People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Berlin with 551 people? Or the one that started all the world wars? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Retirement of Delta II rocket

 * I don't know the refs are ok esp since it's not a BLP, I don't know if spacelaunchreport.com is a WP:RS or not, it leans on that source heavily. One ref early in the launch history section is to a 2 page PDF of unknown origin -- tidak bagus. I'm not a rocket scientist, but there is nothing egregious in the article. Really, I don't know, it's a weak support or oppose I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose , comparing to the last flight of a Space shuttle, the retirement of Delta II model does not feel like an end to an era. Currently, Delta IV is being used from the same family and there are a series of rockets with comparable performance. On the other hand, what about highlighting the satellite and mentioning the rocket in the blurb? --Tone 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tone, I suspect the "any" in "any type" is there to try to spare us such debates. I think the satellite may be better unbolded, especially if that's somehow needed to prevent any quality issues there delaying the posting of an ITNR item, tho both articles seem in decent shape to me (but then I'm no expert on ITN's quality requirements). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile could you please either strike out your above 'weak oppose', or else replace it with an oppose on quality grounds? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support: This is ITNR so only quality issues should delay it, and both articles look in decent shape to me. But my support is weak because I'm well aware that I'm no expert on our quality requirements (which also tends to mean that my quality inspections are usually less thorough than they would be if I were claiming expertise). So I guess I'm saying something like 'seems OK to me but don't post without an OK from others' and also asking for others to please say what, if anything, needs fixing (apart from the questions Laserlegs has asked above, which I don't feel competent to try to answer, but others might).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted No strong objections, articles are good, and retirement is ITNR. Stephen 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Florence

 * Support - Plenty of media coverage, making it ITN-worthy, and the article quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the two above votes are self-explanatory for my support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not disagreeing on this being a blurb, but I see no reason not to combine this and Mangkhut. We routinely do this for other topics in the same specific topic area with both aspects are appropriate ITN (the last few times have been for auto races that happen the same weekend). Yes, two different storms, but equally deadly and destructive, so there's no reason not to have both in a blurb. --M asem (t) 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Two Atlantic hurricanes? Sure. Two pacific typhoons? Maybe. Two storms on opposite sides of the world? No thanks. We don't combine elections, next spring we'll have five different European soccer blurbs in a short period of time. We can spare two blurbs for these two different storms on different sides of the world if consensus emerges that they should be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed with LaserLegs. The fact that they are the same type of event doesn't mean that we should post them as a single news story. We wouldn't merge the general election of one country into the general election of another country, and we shouldn't merge an Atlantic hurricane hitting the Carolinas into a Pacific typhoon hitting the Philippines. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Support better than many disaster articles, what's there is fine, but WP:RS is talking about catastrophic flooding and the article hasn't been updated. Also should it be "Impact" or "Impacts"? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Very large storm that struck high-populated areas as a strong hurricane, and it's stalling in the area (which is why Harvey was so devastating) whilst hugging the coast (which helped Irma stay alive during its final landfall). No, we shouldn't merge this with Typhoon Mangkhut. Yes, we should quickly post Florence (and post Mangkhut separately). Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – Notable event, extreme rainfall impact. Master of Time   ( talk ) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The blurb doesn't state the country in which "the Carolinas" can be found. Chrisclear (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply That blurb is sufficient. "the Carolinas" is a hyperlink which clearly shows the map of the United States. Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply To say that a blurb without a country is insufficient. Readers should not have to click on a link to find out the location of the country where the event took place. If there was a hurricane that hit the Sapphire Coast, I doubt it would be deemed acceptable to state Sapphire Coast with a wikilink but fail to include the country. Notwithstanding your pejorative language below ("lose their mind"), I'm glad you've suggested alternatives that state the country. Chrisclear (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative." Ridiculous. Only an American could have written that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a statement is objectively correct; it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition. It's equally valid to say that "New South Wales" is more informative than "the East Coast of Australia." Nevertheless, I've proposed altblurbs that solve this problem. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition." Until yesterday, I had never seen nor heard the term The Carolinas. My spellchecker disapproves of it. Again, only an American could write what you are writing. I don't mind the fact that Americans see (and spell) things differently from the rest of the English speaking world. What bothers me is when they assume that everyone else sees things the same way as them. No, "the Carolinas" is quite unclear to many people. "East coast of the US" is 100% clear to the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of the US states of North Carolina and South Carolina? They are sometimes known as the Carolinas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes? By non-Americans? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo, even if I agreed to the premise of your argument (which I don't; I truly have no problem with someone saying "in Tasmania" or "in Ontario" or "in Donetsk" or "in Catalonia" or "in Nizhny Novgorod" etc), there's a reason why we'd use "the Carolinas" (hyperlink) and not "the Carolinas" (not a hyperlink, assumes the reader already knows where that is). Nothing about that proposed blurb assumes that everyone sees the world through an American lens. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. That's why you need a hyperlink. Nobody should be forced to click on a link, and many won't. Again, I submit the term is never (well, hardly ever - can't know for sure) used outside the US. We should not use it. Why won't Americans accept advice from non-Americans about the language? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The East Coast of the US (not east coast) is a very unspecific area. At one end it's so tropical they haven't seen 40°F in recorded history (54,000 nights) and at the other it's seen -41°F or -52°F and they get meters of snow every year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We generally have no qualms with accepting advice from most non-Americans. It's those with a clear anti-American bias that we tend to ignore. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss what I have written, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But we have to discuss you, HiLo, because you insist on making you and your painfully obvious anti-American bias a central point of every discussion that involves contentious items like this. When are you going to give it up? WaltCip (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You have an anti-American bias and it is becoming a serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "East Coast of the U.S." is too broad. It ranges from Maine to Florida, most of which is not affected by this storm. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not with the term "the Carolinas" per se, it's just that this level of detail should be secondary to stating the country in which the event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but "East Coast of the U.S." is so broad as to be inaccurate. There's probably a way to say "the Carolinas" and "U.S." without referencing the entire East Coast of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree; for that reason I've kept "the Carolinas" in every altblurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Haters will lose their minds at errors, and we do tend to include the country in a disaster blurb -- but I have no idea how to add it without it being clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that people would lose their mind at errors; I've attempted to write two altblurbs that should satisfy this concern. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as stand alone blurb. It is notable and there has been a fairly slow turnover of articles meaning we can afford to have stand alone articles on both if quality warrants it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - with two comments. 1. Please don't count dead bodies. Just assess the storm. 2. Everyone posting here should quickly also get over to the Typhoon Mangkhut nomination and work on that, to redress Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added another altblurb that excludes mention of death toll (which honestly is how it should be with a hurricane listing, the death toll can change very drastically, both rapidly and over an extended period of time). Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We routinely post the death toll from natural disasters, in fact, the current typhoon in the box was posted with the death toll, I don't like it, but we shouldn't just stop doing it for this one select item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Understandable, worst case scenario is we go to errors to update the death toll if new numbers come out while it's still on the FP. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support obviously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment alt-blurb 2 is "best", the east coast of the United States is a massive region, evacuations are limited to the Carolinas, but it still feels clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Mass evacuations happened before the storm hit. There is no need to mention those in the blurbs, and particularly in light of the Typhoon nominate. (This is in part why having these two storms combined into one blurb eliminates bias between the two events; if we are going to have these separate, we can't focus undue weight in one that's not in the other). And hurricanes/typhoons by nature bring widespread destruction. It is the size of that impact that makes it an ITN rather than just another storm, so eliminating the death count at this point makes no sense. --M asem (t) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --M asem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with most of Masem's comments above - that blurbs for Florence and Mangkhut should contain similar information. The current proposed blurbs for Florence seem incredibly long when compared to the proposed blurbs for Mangkhut. The reasons for this seems to be that (1) As noted by Masem, the blurbs for Florence contain references to "prompting mass evacuations", whereas the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (2) the blurbs for Florence contain references to "widespread inland flooding", but the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (3) The blurbs for Florence mention both "the Carolinas" and "Eastern United States", but the blurb for Mangkhut only mentions either northern Philippines or Luzon. In order to reduce the length of the Florence blurb, it would be useful to consider the following: (1) removing the references to "prompting mass evacuations" and/or (2) removing references to "widespread inland flooding" and/or (3) not stating "Eastern United States" and/or (4) if The Carolinas, United States is considered too clumsy, state North Carolina, United States. I added an altblurb4. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I personally prefer that the blurb mentions both because the real impacts of Florence are certainly not limited to North Carolina, as several of the confirmed deaths thus far are in South Carolina, so I think the blurb should reflect this as it's a significant part of what makes the story newsworthy. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Very large amount of news coverage, and sadly quite a lot of deaths. Article looks to be in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I purposefully have left altblurb IV open, but if it too is exhausted, I would not mind someone overwriting one of the others in favor of a fifth one. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb IV as it's shortest and most similar to Mangkhut. If necessary it could be further shortened by changing United States to USA.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: My above support for altblurb IV is partly on the basis that it's most similar to Mongkhut, but that should NOT be misunderstood as support for postponing posting Florence until Mongkhut is ready. No doubt that would show systemic bias, but as WP:BIAS itself says, such systemic bias is probably unavoidable in the real world. (Incidentally, if it were up to me, which it very sensibly isn't, I quite likely wouldn't post either event as neither seems particularly exceptional, but that's clearly irrelevant here, due WP:CONSENSUS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --M asem  (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --M asem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be systemic bias, but it's not obvious why this is something we should be trying to overcome. With a huge and unnatural effort we have once again managed to give the false impression on the front page that we are something which we can't ever be in practice anywhere except on the front page. This probably alienates many of our English-speaking and Western readers, while making non-English-speaking and non-Western people see this, arguably correctly (and arguably dangerously, whether correct or not), as yet another example of hypocritical and deceitful Anglos and/or Westerners dishonestly practicing 'cultural imperialism' at their expense through creating and exploiting a false and misleading impression of benevolent impartiality and universality, etc. However this argument probably ultimately belongs elsewhere, so I hopefully won't be drawn into saying any more about it here.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting now, hopefully the other storm article catches up with the quality quickly. --Tone 08:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * PP comment – Rather than "killing at least 11 people," which seems subliminally anthropomorphic and rather too immediate, how about "causing at least 11 deaths" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the blurb in the item directly beneath this one says "​At least thirty people have died after..." Is it only the Southern States that feel the hand of the Almighty? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Post-Posting Support despite the 'bias', for reasons already explained above.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That alleged 'Bias' has now disappeared following the posting of Mongkhut. But those determined to see bias can presumably still point to Florence being pictured despite the much higher Mongkhut death toll. And in this case they would seem to be right (or at the very least to have a far stronger case than before), as adding the Mongkhut picture is easy (whereas bringing the Mongkhut article up to scratch was hard). There is also a separate 'cosmetic' problem associated with this, as the Florence picture currently seems to be illustrating Mongkhut. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)

 * Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --M asem  (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.
 * As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.
 * Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per ) --M asem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --M asem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting late comment: It would seem to be better to replace the somewhat unnatural (and euphemistic) word 'fatalities' by the more natural and widely understood word 'deaths', perhaps especially in a blurb about an event that mainly affects non-English speakers. (Similarly to what has already been mentioned above for a different matter, this is not technically an error, so I'm not currently planning to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now also said this at WP:ERRORS, as it seems to have gone unnoticed here.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Florence

 * Wait, obviously - Does one get kudos for posting a weather forecast? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Far too premature even if it makes landfall, if all it does it dump a lot of rain and cause some flooding (as hurricanes tend to do) but no deaths, we shouldn't post this. --M asem (t) 06:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Massachusetts gas explosions

 * Weak Support read the article a few minutes ago, it's light on details but so are WP:RS. This is certainly a rare event. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to ; the sources line in the template is not a yes or no question; typically the nominator links some news stories to demonstrate the nominated event is in the news. Just FYI only. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'm not normally on the nominating side of these! — xaosflux  Talk 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose While this is certainly an unusual situation, there have been no death reported, and this doesn't seem to be anything like a planned event (read: terrorist attack). Unfortunate, but not going to have lasting impact from what we can tell (eg arguably will fail NEVENT in the near future). --M asem  (t) 01:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Earthquakes, fires, floods, night club fires, plane crashes, so so much of what we post could easily fall under that criteria. I'm not saying you're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Masem, unusual but no lasting impact, will likely fall out of coverage once Hurricane Florence makes landfall tomorrow or so. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, the event has garnered enough media attention. The article looks good, I don't see any glaring problems from my read. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose largely due to the article being a stub at the moment and the poor timing of this disaster, which like the above user notes, will likely be shrouded by the incoming hurricane within the next few hours. I also agree with both oppose votes above that the impact will be minimal and short-term at best. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's attaining significant coverage, and the article is pretty good and sufficiently long to cover the subject. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - US centrism will no doubt get this posted, but that's even worse this time round because of the comments that it will be overshadowed by some storm, also about to hit the USA. You Americans are only making yourselves look worse. Do look at what's happening to the the other 95% of the world's population sometimes. This is simply not a major event globally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , There are certainly valid reasons to oppose this(and I do as well), but "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." If you want to fight the very real systemic bias, please make some nominations. As noted, there are currently 0 US related blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , Continuing to rail about US centrism is irritating to the point of being disruptive. You were warned about doing this on ITN a few years ago. Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose localized event that suffers from widespread news coverage in the wake of a soon to be worse disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is nominated for a speedy deletion in the near future. Kirliator (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because we must put a stop to the US centrism that has resulted in there currently being 0 US-related blurbs. Actually, I'm opposing because this just isn't a big enough story for ITN. It's the kind of story that almost never gets posted, but is nevertheless seized upon as proof of some very serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ra Ra All-American comments are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you were talking about a different thread. Gotcha. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - story lacks the necessary significance for an ITN posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial event, with no encyclopedic value or any long-lasting impact. DYK is a possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would make a decent DYK though ... Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No long lasting impact. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if it has "no lasting impact" or "no encyclopedic value" or "fails NEVENT" then consider taking it over WP:AFD since that's the place to have content removed from Wikipedia, not here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Henry Kalis

 * Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have marked this ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Antonio Saca sentencing

 * Weak Oppose target article lacks consistent information about the conviction other than a single sentence. This is however noteworthy, and iff expanded, I will reconsider my vote. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, lack of update. Topic does meet appropriateness for ITN posting otherwise. --M asem (t) 02:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Solely on article quality which is well below what we should be expecting from an article about a former head of state. This goes beyond the usual referencing issues, which do exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rachid Taha

 * Weak support minus the two CN tags, the article is pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have now reffed those two passages - Dumelow (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shen Chun-shan

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to be posted, no referencing issues. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

 * Oppose I was in the middle of actually nominating this when I read that there still is a final vote to be held in January. This is not yet passed. Definitely suggest waiting until Jan. --M asem (t) 14:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose suggest this is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article is still garbage and is not comprehensive at all as stipulated by WP:ITN. It's just a list of objections by special interests to specific sections, and tells me precisely fuck all about the actual law. I'll oppose it again in January if it's still in it's current state. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * HOORAH. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Newman (basketball)
Comment Record section remains unsourced and one cn tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added refs for these sections - Dumelow (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fenella Fielding

 * Weak oppose per nom, there are just a couple of claims that need referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I have added several references. I think this is ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ramin Panahi

 * Weak oppose principally a stub. But what's there is okay, hence the weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Somewhat concerning that there is little to nothing about this person's life, only the circumstances of their death. Looks like a borderline WP:BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - for now. if improvements are made today then I can change my vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kulsoom Nawaz

 * Weak Support The article looks fine, but lede section needs expansion. Amir (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support nothing to write home about, but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support - Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Co Westerik

 * Comment – Article is rather stubby at 250 words. Perhaps it could be expanded with (translated) material from the Dutch article? Sca (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The basically completely unreferenced article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Article is well referenced but Dutch article is sparsely referenced (2 references). The length is a bit short. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Short indeed but just right at the edge of inclusion at RD. BabbaQ (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2018

 * Comment Some details: The composition of the Riksdag is final, but who forms the government is very much unclear. There are three main factions: the left (the "Red-Greens"), with 40.7% of the popular vote and 144 seats; the center-right (the "Alliance"), with 40.3% and 143; and the far-right (the Sweden Democrats), with 17.6% and 62. Both 'mainstream' factions are claiming victory, while neither is willing to enter into coalition with the Sweden Democrats. Davey2116 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The composition is not quite final; the results are still preliminary. TompaDompa (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The preliminary vote count is complete and the article is updated with numbers (the mandatory recount will take another week). Narayanese (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. PR systems often result in no outright majority (no party has won a majority in 50 years and never in this incarnation of parliament) and coalition building. Hung parliament is written for FPTP Westminster systems, which is not applicable here. Red-Greens (Sweden) needs eight years' worth of updates or at least for it to not have been dead for that length of time.
 * Like most Western election articles, there is prose on the background to the election and a bunch of tables. Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of inline citations to support the majority of it. There also is no prose update on the results in the article. It is unfair to ask the reader to infer, that the two main blocs are deadlocked and that a populist party are potential kingmakers or that alliances might split to form a working majority/minority government or that there might be a new election, from an infobox/table - especially if they are unfamiliar with the electoral system. On a minor note, the lead is quite thin. Fuebaey (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since we appear to be !vote counting, please note that I Oppose posting this at this time for the above reasons. Fuebaey (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Per historical result. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 – with most significant results. Sca (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not at all ready. There are plenty of unsourced paragraphs. I'm pretty sure it's against MOS to bold the links of the political parties, but I don't remember where it would say that. No prose describing results (remember to write for a global audience, Americans don't have a parliamentary system) and an empty "Reactions" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Missing text on results and reactions, many citations needed.  Article needs major work before it is main page worthy.  Fix that, and consider this a support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on merit, oppose on quality - feel free to ping me if/when quality concerns are met, and I will gladly flip to a support !vote. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt2 Does not at all match the result from the Swedish election authority (which the article of course copies from, e.g. in the infobox). Narayanese (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fix the article, then post, but don't use a blurb with the word plurality in it. It's a word never used in my English speaking country, so will only confuse my countryfolk. "The most" is a perfectly good alternative. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Plurality is used in U.S. English, but only in reporting on parliamentary elections elsewhere. Sca (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Plurality" is technically the correct word, because it indicates winning the most of something without reaching a majority. But if you're using "hung parliament" in the sentence anyway, that's a given so you could just say "wins the most seats". Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not Alt2, because it appears to be false. The SD's share of the vote went from 12.9% to 17.6%, and their seats from 42 to 63.  Neither of those things is "more than doubles". Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn – Alt2 withdrawn. Could support Alt3. Sca (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we even know what the Red-Green Alliance really is? Our article on it says it has two member parties and one supporting non-member. If you omit the non-member then it is not the largest alliance, contrary to what our proposed blurb states. And my understanding is that both alliances are claiming victory, perhaps precisely because it depends on whether one includes the non-member or not. And claims in our article that Red-Green is the largest alliance are not currently backed by citations from reliable sources (and even if they were it might be hard to know whether these particular sources were being given undue weight or not). (Also the alliances, if you include the non-member's 28 seats, are very close, but I don't know enough to know whether they are so close that the compulsory recount might change the result.) So it might be better to go for altblurb1, perhaps modifying it to indicate that the party has lost support (this is its worst result in over 100 years, since 1911).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of my above comment, I've now added altblurb3 for the reasons indicated above, and also because I don't see why the Prime Minister should be highlighted.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose because (among other reasons) the article's lead seemingly needs to explain the results far better than it currently does, especially in terms of the currently unmentioned Alliances, before we can post (tho I'd prefer to leave that explanation to somebody who understands Swedish politics a lot better than I do). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've wikilinked hung parliament and plurality in the main blurb, as a lot of readers won't know what they mean.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think we should wait until the final results are in, which will happen on Wednesday at the earliest. Official source in Swedish. Since it is so close, only then will we know for sure which bloc is bigger. I also want to say that Tlhslobus gets it exactly right when they say that "both alliances are claiming victory, perhaps precisely because it depends on whether one includes the non-member or not." My personal opinion is that it's fair to include the non-member, as that's what all three parties seem to be talking about at the moment, and they have been an active member before. Nonetheless, it's a very complicated situation, and any value judgements have a risk of not being very neutral. The one thing that we can be sure of right now, is that the Social Democrats remain the largest party, and for the moment Löfven remains the prime minister. He may be voted out in a few weeks when parliament convenes, but he's not resigning before then (which would be the norm for an obvious loss, which this isn't, hence the disagreement). 83.233.111.29 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * → According to the Guardian, official results give the center-left bloc one more seat in the Riksdag than the center-right block. Sweden consequently faces "weeks, if not months, of talks to form a new government." Time to close? – Sca (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Andersson

 * Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that he's notable enough for ITN. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 18:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This isnt a ITN nom. If he is notable enough for inclusion he is notable enough for RD. It is an RD nom, not an ITN nom.BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you were writing I had second thoughts. I'm striking my oppose because it looks like the consensus on this page for the notability threshold for recent deaths is lower than I would have thought. Personally I would prefer a higher bar, but I don't want to start that discussion at this time. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify the clause "were a mechanical heart was operated in"? First off, is it supposed to be "where" instead of "were"? And what is that about a mechanical heart exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I was trying to nominate this, don't know what took my attention away. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Article seems to be in good shape with no referencing issues. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 US Open (tennis)

 * Oppose currently - the tournament hasn't finished (hence no blurb is available yet), and - there's little prose apart from the small section on the women's final (which mainly concentrates on Wiliams). What other prose there is, is largely unsourced.  Will need to be sourced and updated for the men's final. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tournament just concluded 184.153.25.119 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to note the quality of the update need to be very carefully done - there's a big mess around Senera Williams' loss and her rant towards the ultimate winner in Woman's Singles that is creating a social media stir. (see ). --M asem  (t) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added alt blurb 184.153.25.119 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added blurb --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurbs. Osaka article has eight [citation needed] tags, and the US Open article has no prose about the men's final and only some prose on the controversy in the women's final.  Neither adequate for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the Osaka article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support first blurb - Major tennis event, especially notable this year for Williams' loss. Nice4What (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever get posted, no mention should be made of Williams' temper tantrums. This should be about the positive sides of the story, not the negative. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As is so often the case with sports nominations, not enough prose. (The only "notable story" is the women's final?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to Pawkingthree's comment on the lack of prose, there are also no sources in the "Tournament" and "Broadcast" sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The prime story from the women's final was Serena Williams' outburst, and I feel very strongly that that should be included in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, having the first Japanese women's champ is newsworthy, Williams throwing out her toys should be consigned to the trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, Williams' reaction and the media response to it has been the newsworthy part of this event in almost every news outlet, not who the champion is.--WaltCip (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you're a tabloid. This is an encyclopedia and the most encyclopedic thing to happen in the final was the first Japanese winner.  Williams can go back and pick up her toys in her own time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unreferenced sections and undue emphasis on Serena Williams dummy spit. Osaka's win is the noteworthy element of the womens singles final as the first Japanese woman to win a grand slam and only the second Asian woman (if memory serves) will be much more notable in the long term. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb - I don't get the obsession with having lots of meaningless words added to sports articles. The results are the news. (Apart from someone's tantrum, and that won't pass the ten year test.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't getting posted in the state it's in. The lede hasn't been updated, the two prose paragraphs about the tournament itself are completely unsourced (hence the massive great tag at the top which disqualifies it straight away), and there's no prose about the men's singles final, let alone anything else. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ten year test clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, and, somewhat unusually, in this case the results clearly aren't the news - if we want the news we need a new altblurb: Celeb throws tantrum but, perhaps unfortunately, that'd be WP:SNOW, per the ITN Cabal  Tlhslobus (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, having read and thought a bit more about it, including the sexism and the allegedly racist cartoon rows it has generated, I now suspect 'celeb throws tantrum' may have been a bit too flippant of me. And, although it's arguably WP:CRYSTAL (but arguably also relevant to judging what's 'encyclopedic' about this, which is arguably relevant to our assessment of article quality), I also suspect that this row is far more likely to be remembered in 10 years' time than the 'first Japanese winner' aspect (I think John McEnroe's outburst are better remembered now than many of those who beat him, and that's without any sexism and racism aspects to those rows, unlike the current story). I'd also be interested to hear when both male and female Grand Slam finalists were last penalized a whole game (especially so close to the decisive phase of the match), and to see that mentioned in our article if there are any reliable sources mentioning it (if only because it seems relevant to our readers' understanding of the 'sexism' row).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The BLP for Naomi Osaka is ready I think. So too is Novak Djokovic which has over 400 RS. Do we have to bold the 2018 US Open? --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics nor do we simply cover routine events. We need prose in these sports articles to elevate them to beyond being just sports records. --M asem (t) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support first blurb The winner bios are updated and ready to post even if the tournament page can't be in bold. I have significantly improved the references in Naomi Osaka's page.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a single reference in Osaka's article after "Significant finals." Stephen 05:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of references throughout. Tito xd (?!?) 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Pawnkingthree. (Williams spat has been relentlessly hyped in the last three days and shouldn't be in any blurb. ) Sca (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This should probably be closed. The article is no better at all than it was 4 days ago, and if there was any particular reason to post it a la the Williams debacle, that is no longer in the news either. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Spat aside, the event is still ITNR and could be posted if improved. What value is created in closing? ghost 11:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Sgt close. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins: consensus doesn't seem to have developed and the topic is getting stale. Suggest close. 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gennadi Gagulia

 * Oppose - at least four paragraphs are completely unsourced. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lorraine H. Morton

 * Posted Stephen 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) World Trade Center–Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

 * Oppose The (re-)opening of a train station does not feel significant to me unless it is one with very high significance beyond the local area. This news does not pass that bar. Sorry. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To expand on my comment: the association with the September 11 attacks, and the length of time that the station was closed, also do not make this news significant enough for ITN, in my opinion. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 19:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose As collateral damage from 9/11, this is not really as significant as to be compared to something like the new WTC being opened for the first time (which was the target of the attack). --M asem  (t) 19:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons similar to that of Pine and Masem. It's just a train station. Chrisclear (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the person who's mentioned as the "updater" of this article, I don't think it meets the ITN notability criteria. The ITN page is for things that have global relevance, or have great national significance. The Cortlandt Street reopening is basically local news, whereas something like One World Trade Center (which was in ITN four years ago) is nationally significant. epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would note that this is the last train station closed by 9/11, at about 20 meters from the Twin Towers the station and first few yards of track out the south end was by far the closest rail infrastructure to the footprints of the Twin Towers (besides the ultradeep PATH (only leaves the state of New Jersey for 1 stop, not New York subway) which was never rebuilt, they just built a tunnel bypassing the damaged area and put the station there) and the station was crushed by falling debris from the towers. Here they dug out the debris (6+ floors to bedrock, 16 acres), built a tunnel where the old one was which was tens of feet in the air for many years, rebuilt the underground shopping mall, park and stuff to bring the hole back to ground level and sometime during this the station was built where it was in the Old World Trade Center. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Historical footnote. Sca (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but seems like ideal DYK material? Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify for any of the DYK criteria. It's being nominated for Good Article status right now, though, and once it passes GA it could be nominated for DYK. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abu Hassan Omar

 * Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as to what "too many unreferenced claims" refers to (in my book, that's several lengthy paragraphs of prose - here it was two sentences) but they have since been resolved - my thanks to Stephen for specifically tagging. The more pressing issue was the atrocious grammar, which I'm surprised no one picked up on. Tried to clear it up a bit. Appreciate it if someone can go over it again and catch stuff I may have missed. Fuebaey (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just went over it, it still looks okay to me. Thanks for the fixes. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chelsi Smith

 * Support has been tidied up and is ready for main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Alibaba Co Founder Jack Ma to retire

 * Oppose We don't post retirements. --M asem (t) 04:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We do post retirements, e.g. . Banedon (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a retirement, and that was highly contested ITNC. At least with Ferguson, there was some accolades to suggest how important the retirement was. Here, it is a wealthy CEO leaving his business. Not in the same ballpark. --M asem (t) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ferguson was the manager of a successful group of imported sports stars who kicked a ball about. Exact same pitch, actually. 1000% exactly the same. Five years on, and no one has forgiven the Ferguson posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Axtually I’m afraid that demonstrates how much you don’t know about Ferguson and his legacy. But that in itself serves a purpose I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see how this rises to the level of a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support one of the largest people in tech and business worlds Openlydialectic (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – while the above is true, this particular story is of very narrow interest. Important people retire or shift the focus of their work constantly. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fail to see why this should be mentioned on ITN. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose DYK at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alibaba is one of the world's biggest companies: from Alibaba Group article, "Its online sales and profits surpassed all US retailers (including Walmart, Amazon and eBay) combined since 2015." And the company is only 19 years old. Not posting this seems rather guilty of systemic bias. Banedon (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He is not leaving the public eye, just changing focus. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nowhere near ITN-worthy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:MILL. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Hery Rajaonarimampianina

 * Oppose. If this article is correct, the incumbant president must resign if they want to rerun for President. In other words, this is business as usual. --M asem (t) 01:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: He resigned so as to contest again; nothing more routine than this. When he gets reelected, that will be the real news. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Samuel Bodman

 * Support. Article well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be any consensus in the article as to the date of death? Citation needed tag on death date. Should be resolved before posting to main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there is no reliable source citing the exact date of death, the article simply has September 2018 as the death date with info of former President Bush announcing his death on September 7. Issues fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It's OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mac Miller

 * Support seems legitimate enough, no major article problems but could be tidied a bit (do all his albums need their own section)? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support article seems good enough, reliably confirmed by NBC News citing law enforcement: EternalNomad (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article is alright. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Decent article and adequately sourced. A couple minor issues...I added a single CN and I note that the list of studio albums and tours are unreferenced, but I don't see those as controversial claims. Not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Some work needed on discography referencing and one citation needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good to me. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose One CN tag and discography needs referencing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support looks fine. feminist (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything is ok except for discography and tours references. Blue links are not sufficient as references. --Tone 11:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited the albums, but can't find sources for the tours. May be the article can do without that. 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I cited the tours. Only had to type the names into Google. That was it. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Ready for posting I agree.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted per clear consensus. The handful of issues raised have been fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Brazil presidential frontrunner stabbed, is in serious condition
Comment. The ref doesn't say critical. It say serious. Moriori (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected Openlydialectic (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Only a candidate, not actually the president and he did not actually die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, Brazil is a large (210 million, 5h largest country in the world) and stable (compared to most others) country so that an attempt on the frontrunner is a notable event even if he didn't die. Think about whether we would have made an ITN note if Trump had been stabbed and in serious condition during his electoral campaign. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doesn't reach the level of significance needed for ITN material. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Openlydialectic's response to AO. Banedon (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Good analogy from Openlydialectic. An attempted assassination on a large political figure fits the bill for "in the news", whether they die or not. Spengouli (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Not everyday a presidential candidate of a major country let alone the front-runner (most likely to be president) is stabbed and is in critical condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support For reasons similar to those expressed by Openlydialectic, Banedon, Spengouli and TDKR Chicago 101. If a similar incident happened to Trump or Clinton in 2016 this would very likely be posted, so it should follow that this story about Bolsonaro should be posted as well. Chrisclear (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I have to agree with the Support-assessment. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the other supporters. This is a major incident in the forecoming of the presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Target article is OK and significant event in Brazilian politics.Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question is there a citation for "the frontrunner"? Almost all opinion polls have PSL in 2nd place and losing the runoff. Smurrayinchester
 * (Perhaps with the complications about Lula, it's not technically untrue, but it's confusing) Smurrayinchester 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I take issue with this as well. I think frontrunner is fine to use when there's a clear dominance in the polls, but it feels a bit loaded applied here. I mean Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner in the last US presidential election but it would still not feel neutral or necessary to have referred to her as such in a lede. Owen (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Answer I found a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Brazilian_general_election,_2018 and a Reuters article which opens with "The leading candidate in the Brazil presidential election....": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-bolsonaro/brazil-far-right-candidate-bolsonaro-in-grave-condition-after-stabbing-idUSKCN1LM2YJ Haxwell (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggestion added. ArionEstar (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about wikilinking his campaign? w umbolo   ^^^  13:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; I think this image is more appropriate with the context of the situation. ArionEstar (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting suggestion I think it is time we replaced the photo of Typhoon Jebi. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can also change the blurb to the one suggested by me for being more direct. ArionEstar (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Jocelyn Bell Burnell awarded the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics

 * Support It's always time for a good science story. And we have a lady to write about as well. It's all good. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Science stories are always good. However, some context is missing in the award article - there are many winners of 2018 and Bell Burnell is listed separately as special award. Is this because she got award for other work than the others? Is there a special category? If so, why is she in the same table? The article should answer that. --Tone 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added an explanation to JBB's article. I'd rather leave it to someone else to fix the FPP article, as I prefer to focus on improving her article. (Disclosure: I know Jocelyn personally, but not closely. More detail on the article talk page.) --NSH001 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics article clearer. What do you think? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The award is not listed at ITNR, plus the rationale, "to help women, ethnic minority, and refugee students become physics researchers" is not remarkable. Brandmeistertalk  15:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a note, awards don't have to be listed at ITNR to be posted, just that it's "automatic-ness" is not assured. --M asem (t) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh? That is not a "rationale" (???) - it's what she decided to do with the money, nothing to do with what the award is about. I suspect that the committee who decided on the award did so, in part, as belated recognition that her work fully deserved a Nobel prize, for which she was passed over in 1974. --NSH001 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. please review your statement, which appears to have been made hastily and in error. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉  16:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, the main article confirms it was for the discovery of pulsars. I'm neutral on this at the moment. Brandmeistertalk  19:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose a very nice accomplishment, but not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled. How is receiving "the most lucrative prize ever established in science" not significant enough for ITN? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 17:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the rationales provided below by Masem and GreatCaesarsGhost are well-stated. It's unfortunate that this was posted. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Reviewing the article, the "Criticism" section in it covers my concerns that asks if this is a noteworthy prize. It's rather young (less than a decade) by a non-notable organization, and thus of questionable repute (on the other hand, we know the Nobels for example, they have a reputation).  Also the article on the awards seems overly self-promotionary; the claim that it is the most lucrative prize in academia is highly questionable and something I dont see directly from the BBC source - it may be the largest sum of prize money given, but I am pretty confident most researchers would want to be known for winning a Nobel over this. I am sure there are a lot of people that were known to be in the running for Nobels and didn't get selected, but that's how life works. --M asem  (t) 17:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand the concern here (much more than I understand the two Oppose !votes above) because if a random billionaire created a new science prize with a large monetary award, I'm not sure that I would consider the first such award given to be notable either. However, given the non-trivial coverage that the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics has received over the years (admittedly much less than the coverage of the Nobel prizes), I think that on balance the award has crossed the ITN notability threshold, especially in this case where Bell Burnell's work was so significant for physics and there was noteworthy criticism that she was not included in the awarding of the Nobel. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 17:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to be clear about what Muboshgu points out below, there's more coverage of this for Burnell's prize due to the Nobel snub, so as long as that's reasonable covered somewhere I would concur on posting of this. I don't know if there's a way to make the blurb focus on that, it probably depends on what is written regarding the Nobel situation to start. --M asem (t) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that sounds reasonable. I edited the wording of the blurb. What do you think? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 18:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It's not an ITNR award but I do think we should post this one because I saw a lot of news coverage of JBB and the Nobel situation in the reporting of this award, so her honor here is sufficiently significant from that standpoint. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. Banedon (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (Issue now fixed by Pine, so I've withdrawn my Temporary Oppose) Temporary Oppose on quality grounds until her article Wikilinks to an as yet unwritten section explaining the Special Prizes (after which I'm currently neutral). Info on this can be found in Breakthrough's News article (but per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO I'm currently rather reluctant to try to do this myself due to an unhappy recent ITN-Physics experience).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed all of the links to a subsection that explains the difference. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell&type=revision&diff=858955850&oldid=858894029&diffmode=source. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉ 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pine. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support Notable story receiving lots of coverage, as well as being one of the most prominent (and the most lucrative) awards in physics. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fred Hoyle kicked up a fuss over her not getting the Nobel (and this has sometimes being suggested as one of several reasons why he himself didn't get a Nobel). However she herself has said that she doesn't think she should have got it, and has had more fun as a result of not getting it (thanks to all the consolation prizes she has been given instead). As such our blurb's current assertion that she was 'excluded' from the Nobel sounds rather POV - can anybody think of more NPOV wording? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "omitted" would be better than "excluded". There were plenty of other scientists besides Hoyle who shared that opinion, not to mention others (scientists or not) who saw it as an example of systemic bias against women. I've known Jocelyn since about 1980 (but as a Quaker, not as a scientist), and not very closely since her family moved away. The subject of the Nobel or her career has never come up in our personal encounters, but I can confirm that it would be wholly out of character for her to be angry or upset at the Nobel decision. Since I know her personally, I am recusing myself from expressing a "suppport" or "oppose". --NSH001 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NSH001. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * and I changed the word to "omitted". --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉  18:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pine. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is getting widespread coverage, yes; but as a human interest story, and we don't post those here. The nom is attempting to "run an end around" of ITN criteria by tying to a recent award, but that award itself is not significant enough to post here (have we ever even nominated one?). I sympathize with the intent, but this doesn't belong here. ghost 15:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * this is no more a human interest story than the Nobel prize awards are human interest stories. I think that the accusation that "The nom is attempting to "run an end around" of ITN criteria by tying to a recent award" assumes bad faith. And the consideration of whether the "award itself is not significant enough to post here" is something that should be discussed on the basis of the current merits and context, not on whether something has never been done before; if we didn't do things that we'd never done before, then (among other things) Wikipedia would never have been started. Please reconsider your position. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F">✉  18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming bad faith, but you attack every editor that would deign to express an opinion different than your own? I have heard the story of this scientist no less than 12 times this week. Every one, without fail, spends 5 seconds on the substantive merits of her accomplishments, 5 seconds on this ig-Nobel award, and five minutes on the poor hard-working woman snubbed by the boys club. I get it, it's a juicy story. But it's sap, and it has no place here. ghost 21:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Bolded article is high quality, story is being covered sufficiently by major news sources. Checks all the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment My first impression after seeing this posted was a mild surprise. When I skimmed through the article, I was still unsure why this was ITN-worthy. And then it hit me - she's a woman! English doesn't indicate a person's gender at first glance, and I couldn't see it from the front picture, but when I realized it, it all came together! My prejudiced mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that all the feminists on Twitter must be celebrating it precisely because she's female! And lo and behold, my prejudiced assumption was correct. The "underrepresented minorities in physics" talk, etc., yeah. But that's just my comment - I had no clue about the incident beforehand.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some advice, next time you post something this stupid, use a sockpuppet account so you won't embarrass yourself.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL please. Adûnâi posted his frank reaction to the item. There is no need to attack him for it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The community makes an assumption that this is more relevant because it relates to a woman being shunned, yet an commentator who doesn't experience such things is curious as to why this is even considered notable. No need to claim the post is "stupid" or motivate people to sock.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Diane Leather

 * Support This is just short and perfect for a woman who lived a notable but quiet life. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The article had a gap from 1960 to her death, which I have addressed. Unfortunately, I think this is stale now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liz Fraser

 * Support - film and television appearances are also mentioned in the blue-linked articles for those films/TV series and are also sourced in the body of the article, so all sourcing seems covered. MurielMary (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - looks fine to me. I almost had a seizure when I saw that link to begin with - I immediately thought of Elizabeth Fraser, who is universally called Liz as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As the most bestest Liz Frazer in he World :) *small sigh*  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard DeVos

 * Weak oppose too many citations still required. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All tags addressed. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Problems noted above appear to be addressed. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements made.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Oakman

 * Support per nom. I tidied a bit more and linked some jargon for our non-cricketing readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Burt Reynolds

 * Oppose with regret. Sad passing but poor article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm only seeing one tag. The info should be readily sourceable and this one minor blemish should not be a barrier to posting. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunately the Citation needed is for the Accolades section which is largely unreferenced. If that is referenced, I would change to support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added sources where I could find them and removed the entries I didn't find any WP:RELIABLE sources for. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Change to Support. Well done TompaDompa. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm just off on a 24-hr bootlegging run, but this should be up to shape when I get back. 10-4.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think sufficient efforts have been made to improve the article since this morning before his death. † dismas †|(talk) 19:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - improved. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Now appears to be fully referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Decriminalization of homosexuality in India

 * Strongest possible support This ruling is perhaps the most important LGBT rights ruling in the entire history of the world as it decriminalizes homosexuality for 18% of the world's LGBT population in the second largest country on earth population-wise. It repeals a colonial-era law imposed by the British and sets in motion greater equality in India for rulings to come. This will almost certainly set international precedent for more countries to decriminalize homosexuality.
 * Notes: I added three more blurbs to emphasize the decolonization aspect of this and many advocates across India and beyond are emphasizing this, too. Potentially we could link to LGBT rights in India, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and/or the one on the ruling as it is already linked. The articles aren't ready yet. I changed the heading from "Recognition of same-sex unions in India" to "Decriminalization of homosexuality in India" as I don't think this involves relationship recognition, though I could be wrong. Note: This is my first time tinkering with a blurb for ITNR, so there may be procedures or customs that I am not fully aware of, but I really wanted to contribute on this one as it is important to mention that it was a colonial-era law imposed by the British. Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, especially the alternate blurb Major human rights development affecting the world's largest democracy and second-most populous nation. We posted same-sex marriage being legalised via a court ruling in the U.S. so should be fairly uncontroversial to post this. Especially relevant for the English Wikipedia given our high readership in India. Support mentioning the fact the law dates from Victorian colonial times. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support with second blurb IV  which also sounds better, once the articles have been updated. As pointed out above, this is in line with other such ITN items. Regards So  Why  07:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I updated the case article. Regards So  Why  07:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So are we bolding the Section 377 article or the case article? I am missing somewhat a more substantial update in either. This should be addressed first. --Tone 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd bold the case article, that was the decision that is in the news. I also added more to the case article, I hope it's enough, I really have no knowledge of the subject. Regards So  Why  09:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added ALT2 blurb. starship.paint ~  KO   09:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question what's the intended bold article? It's in the news today, when you decide what article to feature I'll do my small part to check refs and grammar. 18% of the worlds LGBT population, or total population (is there a difference in dispersal?) - either way we really need to stop using Indias massive population as an excuse to post stories. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb Certainly in the news today, support bolding Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India since the court's final decision is the reason this is in the news. Article quality also seems to be fine. Oppose ALT2 blurb, given that Section 377 criminalizes all sexual acts "against the order of nature", not just gay sex. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, I tagged the "Trial" section for OR because it mostly relies on supreme court docs which don't support the claims (like "cold storage"). Needs to be fixed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the minute because of the cleanup tags; will revisit if the article is cleaned up. As for the relevance to India, I think it's because it's some way behind the Western world in decriminalising homosexuality. It is a leading item on BBC News right now, so I think it does have global relevance. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Questions 1)Was the government activity pursuing enforcement of this law prior to the ruling? and 2) Does the persecution of the population stop with this ruling? This may make me appear naive, but it seems from the media that much law and order in India is of the "extrajudicial" kind, and I don't imagine there are there are too many that feel it's safe yet to come out. We should not post the 158th country to legalize homosexuality on the basis of it being a big country unless there are concrete impacts to that population. ghost 11:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Persecution isn't something that is stopped by a singular event, but this ruling is major. You can argue the same for literally any country - it's not like the US or Australian govts were actively hunting homosexuals before. Juxlos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting this India's Lawrence v. Texas; in that case I'm an Oppose. In that case, enforcement had substantially subsided by the time of the ruling and it was largely (not entirely) symbolically. It was not posted, but then in predated ITN. In citing US and Australia, I think you're conflating this with gay marriage, the legalization of which impacted 100% of the LGBT community in the US. Obergefell himself was legally married, but was impacted by a regional prohibition on gay marriage. ghost 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ruling isn’t simply symbolic, the Indian Supreme Court also made discrimination against homosexuals in any field illegal. Extrajudicial policing, if any, would be considered a criminal act. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support once fixed. This absolutely needs to be in ITN - hell, Australia with 2% the population was posted - but I agree, article needs a bit more cleanup. Juxlos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the BBC and NYtimes have a statement regarding what the Court said that is not reflected in the article: "The court has now ruled discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a fundamental violation of rights." (BBC); "The court said that gay people were now entitled to all constitutional protections under Indian law and that any discrimination based on sexuality would be illegal." (NYTimes). This to me is much more significant overall than just overturning 377, if it means that if the court's decision mandates the country to no longer discriminates on sexual orientation - a more impressive step in gay rights than just decriminalizing gay sex. However I have no idea if that is the actual official part of the Court's decision, or part of the language leading up to the formal declaration of what the decision is (having read enough US SCOTUS cases, there's room for lots of this rhetoric of what should be the case, but outside of the Court's pervue to actually mandate). There's definitely something ITN-worthy regardless, but I want to make sure the more important factor is the one being present if this truly is the case. --M asem (t) 12:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire text of the judgement, present here, does mention this. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A scan of the conclusions sections (where the actual, actionable elements appear to be) show no concrete statement by the court that legally requires India to not discriminate on sexual orientation (but like with other case law decisions, will make challenging perceived discriminatoin easier since the Court said it should not happen). --M asem (t) 13:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The news is getting massive media coverage all across the world and the judgment is also historic. Of the blurbs mentioned above, I'd support alternative blurb to be posted, but still I'd say that if strikes down could be replaced with some more meaningful word, than it'd be great.Amir (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is quite important, just introducing gay rights or changing wording as most cases are, but to actively abolish homophobic laws as unconstitutional and against human rights. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support  I prefer my proposed altblurb IV (strongest bias possible) but I strongly support adding this to the ITN given it's international importance. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 13:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, overturning Section 377 also decriminalises all relations that were once perceived to be “against the order of nature”. It is a decision that impacts all LGBTs in India. That would make the blurb, which mentions only “gay sex”, technically incorrect. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware, but the purview was that Section 377 was used to victimize homosexuals, I've also added another, more comprehensive blurb. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but with minor concerns over the amount of uncited material in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. I don't feel that it's enough to hold up the posting of the story, but it could be improved. Striker force Talk 14:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's been my understanding that there's no difference in terms of weight between a "strong" support or oppose vote and just a plain vote. This, although I believe "weak" votes usually have been counted as half-votes. (Yes, I realize that the number of votes doesn't necessarily determine consensus.) Has there been a change regarding "strong" votes? Sca (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Supreme court did not strke down the whole of Section 377. It only struck down parts about homsexual acts. Section 377 also criminalises many other acts perceived to be "against the order of nature" like having sex with children and animals. These acts remain illegal. --ASF23 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe all the current blurbs vioilate NPOV with terms like Landmark and Strikes down. They sugest that this was a good thing which could be debated. We should be stating the facts alone i reccomend instead that the blurb read something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of India Changes Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, making all consensual sexual acts legal."Fremanofkol (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly do "landmark" and "strike down" suggest this is a "good thing"? (which, IMHO it is and those who think otherwise are being homophobic) Landmark is used to denote an important decision, whether it is "good" or "bad" isn't the concern. Strike down simply denotes that these parts were removed. In no way does it violate NPOV. Also, w.r.t. to ASF23 concerns, how does this blurb sound: "In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India strikes down parts of the colonial-era Section 377 which criminalize same-sex unions." How does that sound? 2.51.21.106 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Parts would be wrong. Section 377 is still a part of the IPC, the difference being all consensual sexual acts between adults is not under its purview. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Landmark implies a win or a chanige in the correct direction. That is not for us to decide. It also shows bias towards the Cause in question. You wouldn't for example have a Landmark Defeat but you would have a Landmark Victory. It seems as though strikes down is a legal term i wasnt aware of so would retract that part but landmark should go. I also question the usefullness of mentioning the colonial erai question its relivence to the event. Fremanofkol (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about “in a historic judgement”? History can be good or bad depending on the context, and this sentence can be sourced to the BBC article. Mentioning colonial-era would convey that the Article in question wasn’t written by the makers of the Indian Consitution (who wanted to create a democracy with equal rights for everyone), but by the British power, which had set similar laws in all their colonies. Certainly relevant to the event since it isn’t an overturn of a decision taken in independent India.
 * We are not the writers of History so we dont decide what is and is not historic. And Indias colonial past is not part of the current event. We dont typically post the history to an event in the title so why do it for this. Why do we need to add additional qualifiers, isnt it enough to simply state the factthat they have decriminalised homsexual acts in provate .Fremanofkol (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, landmark defeat is also a valid term. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd give you 'landmark', but 'strike down' is just the ordinary English phrase used when a court annuls a statute for conflict with a constitution or other basic law. Other languages use similar metaphors; in French they're cassé, literally 'broken'. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The LGBT rights in India page is better in my opinion. It includes quotes from the ruling; it also explains the situation for LGBT rights in India much more comprehensively. I'm thinking maybe we could switch the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India article with the LGBT rights in India article. Maybe we could have a discussion as well to see how we could potentially flip that and work a linking word for it. Maybe it could link on the word "homosexuality" like homosexuality. I think we should keep the article on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code; I think it could use more elaboration, though before posting. Any thoughts on the LGBT rights in India page? -TenorTwelve (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, we are supposed to be bolding the article that is the reason the subject is in the news presently: in this case, that would be Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. We could link to the articles LGBT rights in India and/or Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in the blurb, though. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to put three articles in a blurb? I'm still new to this.-TenorTwelve (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Three articles can be linked in a blurb, but only one can be bolded,:the article whose topic is the reason the subject is in the news. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support in principle per everybody above, but oppose the 4 alt blurbs per my comment below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Support in principle per everybody above, but oppose the 4 alt blurbs, as, unlike the blurb, they all currently say Section 377 has been struck down, when, as already pointed out by ASF23, it seemingly remains in force except for consensual adult gay sex (it still bans bestiality, pedophile sex, etc). For instance I'm not clear whether heterosexual anal sex is still banned or not (the equality logic seems to make it unbanned, but the wording seems to refer only to gays and lesbians thus seemingly leaving it banned) - perhaps that could be clarified in our article? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Proposal for a rewording of the alternate blurb Perhaps to reconcile the legalization of consensual heterosexual sex with homosexuality we could say The Supreme Court of India strikes down the colonial-era Section 377, thereby decriminalizing homosexuality and all consensual sexual acts. Though I am wondering if the word "all" is applicable as I found text that said "two people;" whereas more than two can be consensual. (Note: I am not inviting a debate nor offering my views on sex with more than two people)-TenorTwelve (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my altblurb that the template can't support: "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, decriminalizing gay and other consensual sex acts." Parts of 377 still are in place (no non-consensus sex; age above 18; no beastiality, etc.) The key one is about the nature of gay sex, but as I read articles on this, prior to today, this also could have been used for things like unusual heterosexual acts (fellatio, for example). The court's decision (linked above) clearly says as long as its adults, consensual, and behind closed doors, that can't be persecuted. --M asem  (t) 16:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Our lead currently says "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex". Either "of the same sex" must be removed or your proposed blurb is wrong (and even if correct it should seemingly say consensual adult sex acts).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I suspect, perhaps mistakenly, that they have not unbanned complex matters such as all degrees of consensual adult sado-masochism, etc, as would seem to be implied by the proposed new blurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Item 1 of the conclusion of the judgment seems to support the proposed blurb, and thus also to require a correction to the lead of our article, and perhaps other parts of it as well (tho the judgment is a primary source, so it might help to have secondary sources also saying this - for instance in relation to 'consensual' sado-masochism, there might be questions over competence to consent, and/or whether consent was genuine, and/or whether it was a sexual act, etc):
 * 21. CONCLUSION
 * i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support: proposed new simple and straightforward blurb: The Supreme Court of India decriminalises homosexuality.-Nizil (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's technically not true. While the ruling's language does talk about gay rights, the actual actionable conclusion only decriminalizing gay sex and some other types of consensual sex acts that occurs behind closed doors. --M asem (t) 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) How about something along the lines of "India's Supreme Court decriminalises consensual sexual acts between adult homosexuals, when performed confidentially"? That's what I got by simply paraphrasing the court's verdict. If considered, the blurb may require grammar polishing for encyclopedic reading. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ruling is actually 'between consenting adults in private' but in practice our blurb also needs to mention gays, so maybe 'between consenting adults in private, thus also decriminalizing homosexual acts'; but some may still also want a link to section 377.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, how about "In a historic verdict, India's Supreme Court interpreted rhat the colonial-era Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code cannot preside over sexual acts between consenting adults in private, thus decriminalising homosexual acts"? The sooner we agree to a simple blurb, the sooner this can feature on the main page, and further discussions on changes to the blurb could continue here. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably too long for our admins. Better may be: The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts. But our article also has to be corrected, both in the lead and in the main body.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also 'homosexuality' was not a criminal offence ((male?) homosexual acts were, but that's not the same thing).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The latest in the endless stream of nominations on the same theme. This particular culture war is over and has been for a long time. The only way this would have been ITN worthy is if the ruling had gone the other way. Will consider supporting if/when gay sex/marriage is legalized in Saudi Arabia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * India’s top court had upheld the decision to keep same sex-sexual relations criminal in 2013, so there was no way to know if this would be the final decision taken with most politicians opposing the decision and the ruling party remaining silent over the issue. It can be called, in a way, unexpected. This culture war might be over in most Western countries, but a majority of the countries throughout the world still haven’t recognised/legalised same sex relations and that says something for itself. Legalisation of LGBT relationships in different countries throughout the world would certainly be considered noteworthy for a blurb at present (and India, being a member of the Commonwealth, would influence other such decisions within the realm for those countries which haven’t decriminalized it yet), even if that country isn’t Saudi Arabia. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Sca (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think Ad Orientem's argument is very biased. There are many countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal. Besides if we believe that "the only way this would have been ITN worthy is if the ruling had gone the other way", we would post e.g. this on ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal ...and many others where it is legal; in some cases for a generation. What possible rationale could we have for posting one in the middle? Methinks it is because this is an Anglophone country, and that reeks of editor-bias. ghost 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * India is an Anglophone country? Banedon (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. India is as Anglophone as much as Vegemite is edible food. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sure is. 125 MM English speakers (2nd only to the US), or 12% of the population. 92% of WP pageviews from India are in English. . Your semantic distractions aside, the point is that editors are prone to bias in favor of their home countries, and India is the home of a large portion of our editors, a great many of whom only come around these parts to support Indian stories. ghost 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot count the absolute numbers, or you'd have to conclude that countries like Liechtenstein are no-language countries. As you can see from the linked article, Hindi is the dominant language in India, spoken by 53.60% of the population. English is at 12.18%. To call India an anglophone country is intellectually dishonest. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per Banedon. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per Banedon. Clearly a subject unique and historic. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - LGBT rights are not so advanced in Asia compared to Americas/Europe/Australiasia. India’s gigantic population only increases the effects of this ruling. starship.paint ~  KO   02:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just curious but why is this taking so long to post? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Chill. There is no rush.--- Coffee  and crumbs  04:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Coffee The only reason India is evolving is specifically because it is Hindu majority. At least give us some credit. Manish2542 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, preferring Alt. Blurb II. This is front page international news in many different countries. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant decision. Let us not forget that the Muslim world is not the only culture averse to LGBT rights and India has a significant Muslim population.--- Coffee
 *  Oppose  The articles connected to this news blurb STILL do not do justice to this "landmark decision" and should be worded better. Also, there is so much confusion in the articles and here related to what the judgment actually says (or so it seems to me), arising from the aspect of trying to phrase the judgement into a few words. I just wanted to post the 5 verdicts copy pasting them from the actual Supreme Court judgement, (taken from the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India source Verdict Link) -
 * We hold and declare that:
 * (i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
 * (ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by the Constitution;
 * (iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
 * (iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law; and
 * (v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled
 * Yes, this is a big landmark decision, (not just because of India's huge population lol) but I will still have to oppose the ITN.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Things in the article Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code like the way the heading is worded "Eminent Personalities Case" (???) or phrases such as "In a surprising move" and "The court seemed sympathetic" seem vauge and need to be rephrased. (Yes i could do it but that isn't the point here). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We still haven’t found a way (or a blurb) to link to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and say exactly what the court order said, without sounding wordy. Either way, even if its linked, it isn’t the article that is being bolded and concerns over its quality should not be delaying the posting of the main article. As for Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (the bolded article), I have paraphrased all five points the Supreme Court mentioned in the conclusion. Hope this makes you reconsider your oppose. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Articles are more sorted now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong support per Banedon. Very notable news story (second-most-populous country in the world), and the articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that the event has enough support for posting, but all our listed blurbs are technically incorrect and have little support, pasting a blurb proposed by Tlhslobus above: The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts. This blurb seems to be correct, and I support it for posting. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Replaced ALT1 with this. starship.paint ~  KO   13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support with this Blurb but none of those listed in descrption it is accurate and doesnt vilate NPOVFremanofkol (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Support @Tone I'm just concerned about the phrasing, it isn't correct. "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all private consensual sexual of adults acts legal." should be replaced by "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal." Manish2542 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC) "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era [[Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code|Section 377, making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal, including homosexuality. I think this is important because ultimately this made the news because homosexuality was legalized. I suggest the link LGBT rights in India attached to the word homosexuality. In case folks are wondering, LGBT rights in India is ready to post with it. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The decriminalization of consensual homosexual act is of great importance, for it can have great implications in India and also in other parts of the world. Eventhough the law was rarely prosecuted with over 200 cases and the no. of people actually convicted of these 200 cases is further negligible, the fact that the LGBTQ+ community is given a voice even in a socially conservative society matters. This verdict can also have ripple effect and lead to decriminalization in other countries. Hence it is of my opinion that this verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme court deserves a blurb. I feel that the alternative blurb as given above i.e. " The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts " would be appropriate as it is accurate. Adithya Pergade (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support alt blurb per banedon and others, once article is ready (which I believe it nearly is). We posted about Obergefell v Hodges despite it affecting vastly less people and similar to less news coverage, so why not post about this? It's definitely "in the news", it's a monumental decision which will affect millions (if not billions) of people - the only arguments I see against not posting the article in principle revolve around personal political beliefs about whether or not LGBT rights reporting is still relevant. If it's in the news and meets our criteria, it's relevant. Those types of arguments have no place here. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb The New alt Blurb fixes all issues with posting this. Fremanofkol (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Since there was some discussion about how to formulate the landmark term, I'll just omit it. Feel free to change. --Tone 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe the word "adult" should be put into the ITN. (I know it is unsaid, but still.) "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all consensual sexual acts between adults legal." (I hope posting a comment now after its been posted on the main page is ok) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment same as previous comment on "making all consensual sexual acts legal" - source says: "The ruling effectively allows gay sex among consenting adults in private." - that's not at all the same as what's posted. I think we should avoid feeding false hope to the zoophiles and the animals themselves. Wakari07 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The original ruling’s conclusion (linked above) mentions “consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex", so gay sex might be wrong. Or is the term a misnomer (given that gay was at one point of time used to refer to woman too), also including sex between females? 2.51.21.106 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting rewording request Thank you folks for posting the article. I think it is important to mention that it legalized homosexuality in it, so I propose the wording be
 * Support this rewording request by TenorTwelve. The key focus of the reporting is homosexual sex and it should be reflected. An alternative, though, is using ... between adults legal, including such homosexual acts. starship.paint ~  KO   00:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the word homosexuality is okay, but I think we should avoid the words "homosexual acts" and "homosexual" as the word "homosexual" is going out of use and "homosexual acts" reduces LGBT people to a sex act. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is "homosexual acts" which is OK, since it is correct, while "homosexuality" is unacceptable, being incorrect (homosexuality was not illegal and thus has not been legalized, it's homosexual acts that were illegal and are now legal) and also it is the suggested wording "making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal, including homosexuality" that would reduce homosexuality (and thus arguably also lesbian, gay and bisexual people) to a sex act (homosexuality is an orientation, not an act). So I support Starship.paint's suggested word change, if necessary omitting any mention of section 377 if that is needed to make more space for homosexual acts, especially as no specific portion of section 377 has been struck down (see discussion below, and also altblurb1 above) Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The court did not strike down ANY PORTION of Section 377. It just said that homosexual sex is not unnatural, and therefore Section 377 cannot be applied to criminalize homosexual sex. --106.208.38.214 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of homosexual sex, nor of it being natural or unnatural, in the judgment's conclusion, which merely says that anything in section 377 that bans consensual adult sex acts in private violates 4 Articles of India's Constitution. But you seem to be right that it doesn't strike down any specific portion of Section 377, and omitting Section 377 from our blurb (as in, for example, altblurb1 above) would thus probably make it more accurate and shorter (thus leaving more room to explicitly mention homosexual acts).
 * 21. CONCLUSION
 * i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Of course in theory the item should arguably be temporarily pulled on quality grounds, because of many inaccuracies in our bolded article's lead and in its main text, mostly along the lines of what has been discussed here regarding various blurbs. The main reason I'm not calling for it to be pulled is that I'm not currently planning to try to fix it myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), but I'm mentioning the matter here in case others want to try to fix it.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that when we talk about legal judgements in the media or in a twitter post, we simplify things so that it can fit into the headlines. The media and everyone uses the words "strike down" (which doesn't have to mean "remove" etc here), "homosexuality", etc because in essence that is what the judgement translates to. Even if the judgement does not use those words, the headlines have. There will be a certain amount of loss in meaning, but we have to remember that this is just a headline, and not the judgement itself. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 6,000 words. Sca (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Iburi earthquake

 * Support altblurb. Article is short, but sufficiently detailed given what is currently known, well referenced, and the topic is currently being covered by news sources.  Checks all the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt. They are saying part of this quake's damage was amplified by rainfall from Jebi that weakened the soil in some areas that led to deaths, and while I could see a blurb combining Jebi and this, that would be rather awkward. --M asem (t) 12:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks good and with more details coming, it's ok to be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erik Hauri

 * Support I have updated the article. It could do with more work but is probably fine for RD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian involvement in Salisbury poisonings

 * Support Article is high quality, update is sufficiently detailed and well referenced, story is currently in the news. Checks all of the boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support [redacted], but change the "grievous crimes" to something more encyclopaedic. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm pretty sure if Russian agents were charged with assassination attempts on the soil of most countries outside the former Soviet Union (e.g. the US), it would be the biggest news story of the year. So, because this is the UK, it's not, but it's still very highly notable and easily sufficient for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought ITN wasn't a news ticker and that we don't necessarily follow the biggest headlines. I also thought you already knew that. Or am I missing something? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it's in the news today, but we've featured this when they were poisoned, we featured again when the diplomatic row took place. We have a long established (but I think incorrect) precedent of waiting for convictions in court; and I doubt Putin is going to hand these people over to stand trial. I honestly don't care that much, but people have screamed "systemic bias" over less. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Be very careful with the word "charged", which has a specific legal meaning and which, as far as I can see, the UK government and all UK media are studiously avoiding in favour of "named as suspects", which is not the same thing at all; the official statement says this forensic investigation has now produced sufficient evidence for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to bring charges but doesn't actually specify whether charges have been brought. As we're accusing named individuals of murder in Wikipedia's voice, it's important the sourcing on this one be absolutely watertight. &#8209; Iridescent 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Suspects are usually arrested or in custody before being charged. But the press seems to think otherwise. The England and Wales section at Indictment is hardly very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Although Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, in his statement does say: "As you have heard, today’s charges relate to the first incident involving the Skripals and Nick Bailey. We continue to liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the poisoning of Dawn and Charlie." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't post charges/arrests, and generally wait until convictions. Add Iridescent's point above that they have only been named, not actually charged. If this was more a direction assertion like if the UK were directly pointing to Putin saying he gave the orders directly, that might be different as a diplomatic row, but this is not that level yet. --M asem (t) 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a "fun" note, Theresa May did say that it was very likely the order came from high up the chain of command in the Russian State. All but naming Putin, because she has a brain. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, she said: "So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state." But not "at the most senior level". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose violation of WP:BLPCRIME, as they haven't been tried and found guilty of anything. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a BLPCRIME vio? They may not be WP:WELLKNOWN but the incident certainly is, and the authorities in the UK aren't exactly known for making false accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "...the authorities in the UK aren't exactly known for making false accusations" These are politicians, not authorities. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The prospect of any conviction seems somewhat remote? But I'm not sure if this is a factor that weighs more on either side of the discussion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Masem, although coverage says Petrov and Boshirov have been charged in absentia. Evidence presented by UK officials looks damning, but Wiki is neither jury nor judge. Sca (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The UK likely will never get the chance to even take these men into custody, let alone put them on trial and convict them, as Russia does not extradite its citizens(and certainly not its spies). (asking no one in particular) Is there no way to write a blurb to highlight this and not run afoul of BLP? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Though sources do say they have been charged (obviously practically impossible to formally arraign them), I have added an alt blurb that should give clarification that these people are not arrested or anything. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - this is indeed major news and should be included. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pure anti-Russian propaganda, from one of the usual suspects, designed to feed the Russia haters in the west. For an example, see "F*ck Putin" above. These are allegations, not even charges. Not proof of anything. All part of the international propaganda war. And a lot of people have been sucked right in. We must not play this game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The most neutral news agency we have is the BBC, which played video footage of the charged men during the time of the offence. From your previous issues with Wikipedia administration and what you perceive as "POV pushing", you'll disagree, but it's quite clear to most people that there is no reason to not believe the UK government. Not to mention "I think it's propaganda" isn't a good reason to oppose (no judgement). Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the actions of a right wing government we're seeing here. Nothing Theresa May does can prova anything about the guilt of people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am genuinely not sure if you are just delusional or a russian bot. Either way, I've warned you for this comment and spreading russian propaganda on wikipedia further will likely result in a quick and permanent ban. Take care. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo is a controversial, but presumably well-meaning editor. He recently gained an interest in Eastern Europe and was warned about edits on it. Kingsif (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Openlydialectic, if I see any more shit like that from you you can argue your case via an unblock template. If you have any evidence that an editor with 50,000 edits over a 12 year period is 'a Russian bot' provide the diffs. &#8209; Iridescent 23:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. I now see attempts to silence someone with a contrasting view. Not a good look guys. Are you really all happy with F*ck Putin"? I suppose it's offence on the accepted side, so must be OK. (And they say Wikipedia isn't censored. Hah.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention was not "to silence someone with a contrasting view". However, a personal opinion on a news article, especially when proven false, is not something that is accepted as a reason (either for support or oppose). Hope that clears it up. I know you strive for neutrality, as do I, but calling one government placing charges on people "anti-Russian propaganda" is a stretch at least. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is par for the course for HiLo. He made a controversial comment that explicitly assumed others were acting in bad faith. When challenged, he tried to portray himself as a victim by claiming that others are trying to silence him. Classic battleground behavior. Don't worry, nobody else believes you were trying to silence him. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So striking out my comment and being threatened with being blocked was not a form of silencing? OK. I'll try hard to understand that. It's revealing how making a comment that challenges the right wing, western world official view leads to a lot of people wanting to talk about me, rather than what I wrote. It's just like blaming evil foreigners for all one's local problems, I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking out is used when votes for support/oppose have faulty reasoning, so that they aren't counted. Nothing more, nothing less. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On that basis, an awful lot of content here would be routinely struck out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Also it's already been posted before, and I don't consider this significant enough for multiple postings. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As a few people have said they oppose per Masem, I'd like to discuss the three reasons Masem gives: 1. "we generally don't post unless convicted". It's obvious that the actual chance of conviction happening is very unlikely, so that should be weighted, not to mention this could well be notable enough to be one of the exceptions. 2. "they've only been named, not charged". They have been charged. 3. "if this was more a direction assertion like if the UK were directly pointing to Putin saying he gave the orders directly, that might be different". As my comment said above, the UK are pointing at Putin, but in a way that won't get them poisoned tomorrow. (Please respond with discussion) Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If they have been charged, that should be in any blurb, e.g. "... charged with attempted murder"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was only opposing per Masem's first point: if the conviction doesn't happen then we shouldn't post. For example we have news such as Navalny says he will sue Putin, which everyone would agree is very unlikely to succeed, which doesn't mean it's postable. Being charged is irrelevant; it's being convicted that matters, see e.g. this, we didn't post it either. Banedon (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do consider the issue here, that with the two named individuals having disappeared meaning there's likely never going to be any arrest or trial and thus no conviction. So the question is, will this have any impact, and so far the answer seems to be no - I'm not seeing massive politic unrest yet. Also, their ties with the current Russian gov't remain iffy, so we have yet to have the evidence they were acting on orders or alone. Basically, this a huge point of speculation and not a hard milestone we can use for ITN. --M asem (t) 00:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a good point about not knowing the kind of impact this will have, because it did just happened (which is why it's in the news at the moment). Also, Theresa May said that they can trace the chain of command, so it's not completely speculation. Six months of investigations and being the UK infers there wouldn't be charges unless they were at least 99.9% sure of everything. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If they can trace the chain of command, then likely if they cannot capture these two, I can see a potential of UK formally asserting that Russia ordered the assassination attempt (if that's where it proves out). At which point, that might be news. But even with that, consider the overall picture here: no one actually died, and we're talking about what appears to be a targetted poisoning of a double agent by supposedly a Russian agency. It's rather an icky situation if that's all true, but it's not a major political scandal that I can see (but that could be proven wrong), so even closure on the matter may not be necessary. --M asem (t) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously a good point about being contentious, but you’re forgetting that a British citizen did die. And, now updated, the British are now directly blaming Putin, which has also been reported by the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But again, this is not new. They blamed Russia all along, hence the expelling of the diplomats. There is no denying this is a story of today making a few headlines in the papers, but we're not a news ticker. This story will have many twists and turns, but until something of lasting significance occurs, e.g. a conviction, we don't need to keep on re-posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it’s a good thing we’re not posting rolling updates, like the Kremlin telling the UK to "go to hell". If we take this separately to all the past updates, would the U.K. mounting such accusations be worthy of feature on ITN? I’m inclined to say that it would. Kingsif (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've already posted the poisoning in the past and these developments don't warrant an additional posting in my view. Regarding the contentious comments above, on very controversial issues such as these we must be extra careful not to violate WP:NPOV or be seen to push an ideological agenda. WP:BLPCRIME may also come in here - remember "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction". Aside from all that, blurb is obviously not encyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support This is huge news. Misapplying the standard that we don't post until convictions in this case is a willful misunderstanding. Thue (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a good point: the news is less about people being charged itself, which is quite minor, and more about who by, who for, and the crime and international relations instead. So, saying we don’t post people being charged until convicted is a misapplication because the news to be posted is that the British are making claims with huge international significance. Also note that the people were never named in any blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The British government have been saying all along that they suspect Russian involvement. They expelled a whole load of diplomats immediately after the incident. This indictment doesn't really add anything new to the international relations angle. It's also far from clear that it will have any lasting consequences. People were indicted in connection with the Litvinienko poisoning but nothing became of that. I just see this as one more step in a slow - burn news story that we've already posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reopening with new blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support now reliable sources have named Putin as being involved with it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely careful about using the information in the second BBC article, as that is far less an official statement and one made in a press interview. Further the full statement made here is not saying that Putin gave the order, but that Putin needs to take responsibility that someone in his gov't, which Wallace claims Putin has full control of, issued the order. That's not saying Putin directly ordered it. --M asem  (t) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Which ones? And are they explicitly blaming Putin for it, or are they quoting non-senior British officials who are? Because there's a huge difference between these two, which most Wikipedians seem to overlook most of the time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify, yes, the blurb shouldn't say "responsible", but the BBC have certainly pointed the finger at Putin and said "guilt by association, m'lud". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added the word "ultimately", which is the term Wallace used in the full statement, to clarify this. Kingsif (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The BBC claiming it is not the same thing as the government formally stating it. Let's avoid the hyperbole here. --M asem (t) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that the BBC just claims that Ben Wallace said this (live on BBC Radio 4's Today programme)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying, to what Ritchie suggests, that because the BBC has pointed blame, then we should accept that. The BBC isn't the organization here that can made any credibly claim on the guilt. --M asem (t) 19:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. I'm not sure the BBC have pointed anything. Whether or not Wallace speaks for the government is another question. Conveniently, of course, should there be unexpected consequences to May's careful announcement, the Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime could be expendable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose just because we didn't say RUSSIA DID IT! last time doesn't mean it wasn't clear at that time. We do not post every advance of a slide toward some obvious conclusion. ghost 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we did: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/salisbury-attack-joint-statement-by-leaders-of-france-germany-the-united-states-canada-and-the-united-kingdom Openlydialectic (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My "we" was in reference to WP, not HM government. Why would you think I speak for them? ghost 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I'm sure we can word the blurb to avoid any BLP issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not too familiar with British legal codes, but precedent is to post sentencing. Willing to change my oppose if what's going on here is the equivalent to that. We previously posted the poisoning itself, and then later the expulsion of diplomats.  Spencer T• C 03:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even putting aside the fact that precedence is to post sentencing, the story by itself has no legs. U.K. has accused Russia of having a role in the poisoning. Russia has denied it. With no independent judiciary to do any sort of fact-finding, it's doubtful that anything will ever come of this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very reasonable argument. Although I think the Metropolitan Police would argue that they had amassed quite a lot of facts, not least the timed series of CCTV images of the two suspects, which has been made public. Russia's presentation of any "contradictory facts" has, so far, been somewhat lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * → Votes running against posting. Getting stale. Sca (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bhagwatikumar Sharma

 * Oppose. Article is in terrible shape; the "Works" section for instance can certainly be reduced to notable ones only. Alex Shih (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rachael Bland

 * Support Very short, but it's ok otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've destubbed it this morning, and with obituaries coming out today, it should be expanded more. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. It even looks better now. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Ready to be posted. Short but just long enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stubby. Sca (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's over 1,500 2,700 characters - not a stub. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * → The text itself is 435 words. Sca (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's 529 last time I looked. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You must be counting footnotes and other things on the page. Sca (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * .... or just expanding the article ;-) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article says almost nothing meaningful other than "she had a job and she died". It would need to be fleshed out with some more substantial details before being useful for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have another look :-) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support The expansion by Ritchie looks good enough to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Jebi (2018)

 * Support - article could be expanded but what is there is well referenced and sufficient to post. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with Mjroots. Deadly and destructive event. Jusdafax (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support without the tabloid phrasing, and with updated fatality count. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting, with a more standard blurb. --Tone 07:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull – I don't have the time to expand and fix this myself, but the article is severely lacking in content. The meteorological history is missing everything between August 28 and September 4, and after the Japanese landfalls; there is no section on preparations, and the impact has only 4 sources (3 of which are for peripheral impacts in Taiwan). Will take substantial work to get this to a respectable point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But it adequately covers the details surrounding the news story itself, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment this way too: ultimately the article should contain all those details and knowing efforts that editors like Cyclonbiskit do for weather articles, that's great, but for ITN, it needs the sources to confirm fundamental details (initial death tolls, etc.) but not much else. We don't expect GA/FA quality articles for ITN, particularly when the article is new due to the event, just enough content and sourcing to show as a good example of an article-in-development. --M asem  (t) 06:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I hold weather articles to a higher standard given how long I've been involved with them. If it meets ITN requirements there's not much else to say :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinion: It is very absurd that the news says Typhoon Jebi attacked Taiwan... As you can see from the picture in the article itself, the typhoon's route does not coincide with Taiwan in any way...--こいちぼん (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Bill Daily

 * Oppose as stale. Aiken D 08:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was not reported until now, it isn't considered stale. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, it didn't click at first that the 4th was still within the last week. Time flies.... Moving to the 4th. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Danish FA

 * Question the article is huge, can you link to the relevant section to make it easier to readers to find? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - sorry. I wrote this section today, which incorporates the nominated material. The blurb also concerns the squad, which is here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Using Googles "region and language setting" feature, I did see this story in ZA and IE region, but not near the top (no mention in the US). The article itself is iffy, with several paragraphs missing refs, and I don't think the update itself covers the background in the players dispute to be comprehensive. That said, the story is interesting (I had no idea futsal was a thing) and a major FIFA national team having to cobble this squad together at the last minute for their first matches of a new tournament is unusual. I think this is DYK material, which IIRC has amended it's criteria to include |"recently updated" articles. DYK is apparently a bog though. Thanks for the good faith nom, even if it never makes the main page, I learned something today (which is one reason I stalk ITN/C). --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest oppose Internal Danish footie matter of far less importance than many of the items that don't receive consensus to post here. DYK is the place this belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - is it eligible for DYK? The article is not new, having begun in 2004. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment it's receiving wide coverage, certainly across Europe, and potentially strongly impacts on a UEFA tournament, not really an "internal" matter. But I don't think it rises to the level of encyclopedic value I'd imagine to see in a synopsis of the year's news events.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Almost any squabble involving Fussball draws wide coverage in Europe, but this is certainly not significant in the global scheme of things. (Neither was Özil). – Sca (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - way overblown. It's just a dispute with players. Posting this would be akin to posting a strike by (less than) 100 workers. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We posted an NBA or NHL strike a few years back --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Kolkata bridge collapse

 * Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - with only one death, and this not being a unique occurrence in the city, I don't see much lasting impact, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. Snow close? Sca (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing new (the third bridge collapse in recent memory) and a single death. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marijan Beneš

 * All fine here, ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The text is reasonably well-referenced. However, the boxing record section is unreferenced. There is a link to the home page of a boxing records website but not to a page containing his record and it would be unsuitable to have a link to the main page given its state of referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Had a second look, the link was apparently broken. It works now. --Tone 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good to go. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed my position to support now that referencing issues for record have been fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Pakistani Presidential elections

 * Oppose The President of Pakistan is a ceremonial de jure figurehead who represents the "unity of the Republic." We passed on Khan being made PM because the election results were posted instead (and Khan mentioned then). We seem utterly unwilling to correct this obvious defect in the wording at ITN/R, but I see no reason to post the election of a "ceremonial figurehead" when the national election was just featured. $0.02. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you usually argue that almost every nomination here should be posted because it is in the news, but not this one. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I find your observations of me as an individual to be irrelevant, and ask that in the future you'd focus on the discussion and specific points I've made. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on you as an individual, you are free to comment on what you wish (largely) however you wish. I was mostly curious as to why you don't think this should be posted when you think almost everything else should be posted, but you are free to ignore my observations. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've covered the PM who appears to be the key figure of power in the country, and while the President here is a technical head of state, its not really of any power compared to other heads of state. --M asem (t) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support per comment to Vanamode93 below. --M asem (t) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly made the same argument, but I'm shocked to see these two respectable editors oppose an ITNR on notability grounds at ITNC. What gives? ghost 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I don't think the Pakistani President is what we'd consider "head of state" under ITNR, since most of that power is in the hands of the PM and the presidency is mostly ceremonial. (Eg if Pakistan hypothetically decides to go to war, it will be Khan leading that decision, not Alvi) INTR does allow these positions to be considered on a case-by-case basis but I argue that we've just covered the PM election effectively, so there's no need to cover this one. --M asem (t) 16:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's ambiguity at all in the ITNR, which is why I support fixing it. And I don't think we get to "consider" what is a head of state. It's not an opinion. Being a figurehead doesn't make one any less a head of state. ASIDE - It would be nice to see all the IARs go over and fix ITNR. How about only general elections get ITNR, and everything else is ad hoc (ITNC)? ghost 11:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, President of Germany is also elected by the parliament and it's the chancellor that has the most power but we posted the latest election in 2017 nevertheless. This article has sourcing issues, though. --Tone 16:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have though - compounding errors doesn't correct them. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:IAR. One needs to be careful to avoid obfuscating who the true head-of-state is. The President is not the PM.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. No need to post a figurehead. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead (of several countries). 331dot (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvious that Queen Elizabeth II is far more influential than this gentlemen. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This nomination is about the election, not what the winner will or will not do- just as the succession of a new British monarch is about the event itself. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Pakistani president is less influential than the British monarch, it stands to reason that the Pakistani election is less important than the British coronation. Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose essentially agree with WaltCip's comment –Ammarpad (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Previously Imran Khan blurb was not approved and now this. Pakistan is not a small country to be ignored like this. All British smallest elected/selected members gets INTR and when it comes to this, it becomes ceremonial. Then why Geremany blurb was posted? Nauriya (Let's talk) 08:154, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Khan's win was posted . Stephen 06:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the nominator and the reasons noted just above. Pakistan is the 5th-most populous country. Son of Kolachi (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post per ITNR when ready. (I won't, obviously.) I don't see how it benefits the project to IAR in this situation. We shouldn't be afraid to have potential readers easily find this subject if they are looking for it or if they might be interested in it and come across it. Head of state is not about the level of power, but the fact that they represent their nation to the world and their citizens.  It's been pointed out that we posted the similar German presidential election and it just seems to be systemic bias to not do so here. It is has been pointed out that there is an existing discussion on changing the ITNR listing(which has been attempted and failed many times, but nevertheless) which should be contributed to if change in the ITNR listing is desired. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be afraid to have potential readers easily find this subject if they are looking for it or if they might be interested in it and come across it. A strange choice of words. I don't think fear is a factor in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - As per nom and 331dot Sherenk1 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose President doesn't have an actual impact. This is not a world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.14.181 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Figureheads come and figureheads go. I personally am against posting such on ITN ever (be it Germany or Pakistan, and especially the miniscule stuff on ITNR that no one really cares about). People need to stop taking things personally around here (small country and such, there's a lot of small countries which are better AND worse off than Pakistan, so I don't know what you're trying to prove). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 11:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to to visit the ITNR talk page and suggest for removal any item that you feel "no one really cares about", as well as to participate in the discussion to change the head of state ITNR listing. Elizabeth II is a figurehead but we all know her passing will be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Might as time comes, but no exact timeframe yet. But as for an idea on my position, read LaserLegs' reply above. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 11:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course we'll post her passing, the question is, will we post 50+ blurbs, one for every single state in which Charles will become "Head of State" or will we use common sense and not clutter the box with the meaningless appointments of silly figureheads? Hard to say. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't difficult at all to say that Charles becomes head of state of most Commonwealth countries, but that is for another time. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Another time"? You're the one who brought the future passing of Elizabeth II into this thread. It's a simple question: when she passes, should we post 50+ blurbs, 1 each for every nation in which her successor is now head of state? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I answered your question; if you wish to debate a blurb for an event which is likely some time off, you know where to find me. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, you deflected, twice, after bringing "an event which is likely some time off" into this thread in the first place. That's ok, we all know that no, ITN won't blindly follow the letter of ITN/R and post 50+ blurbs for the change of heads of state of every commonwealth country; we'll use common sense, just like we should do now and not post the election of a meaningless figurehead. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but the blurb I was trying to suggest was "Upon the death of Elizabeth II, Charles III becomes head of state of several Commonwealth countries". See, it's not hard at all. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hrmmm, reading through WP:ITNR I see heads of state for countries, but not the commonwealth as a whole. You're saying you'd WP:IAR in this case (which you introduced) and do what makes sense, instead of following the letter of WP:ITNR precisely and posting 50 blurbs, one for each country? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense and is not beneficial to readers to ignore the choosing of the head of state of a highly populated country(sixth most, I think). IAR needs to benefit the project, and I don't feel it does here. It doesn't make sense to post (as you say) "50 blurbs" when one will do. That is not IAR, that is combining 50 separate blurbs that all would qualify on their own. I have no further comment on this line of discussion.  331dot (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re:Germany yes we posted Germany, maybe we shouldn't have? It's not fake bias to post one, come to your senses, and not do it again. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support It's not like there are many other presidential elections going on right now. Pakistan only has elections every five years, both the general election (for the prime minister) and the presidential one. I don't see what harm posting this blurb can cause; as far as coverage in international sources is concerned, it is satisfying that criteria.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, which I shouldn't have to, because this is ITN/R. I had a bunch of folks jump on me when I opposed posting the Super Bowl a while back; and here we have a nationwide election for the head of state in the world's sixth most populous country, and we're IAR opposing this on significance? seriously? ITN/R isn't ambiguous; the way it's written explicitly covers both real (typically elected) heads of state, and the figurehead types (typically not elected). Khan's election was posted as the result of a general election. This is a different ITN/R criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that an ITNC that meets ITNR that is otherwise fine on article quality can still be discussed for posting or not if that one single ITNR event is actually not that significant or surprising - an IAR exception to ITNR. The point of having ITNR is to avoid having to rehash why a general class of events should be posted aka the Boat Race issue (where the appropriate of the Boat Race in general is nearly always questioned when it is nominated by TRM). In this case, we accept that we'd normally post head of state elections, but there can be exceptions which is what the ITNC should focus on. My oppose more specifically on this one ITNC is that we just posted on the general election that put the person with the most power into office. That said, I just reviewed 2013 and we posted both (well the general election for the national assembly, not when the PM was selected) and the President both which had the same relative timing about a month apart, so I am going to change my !vote here. I still think we should be a bit more aware of the timing of these elections so it doesn't appear to be extraneous/repeated posting, or agree on the talk page that head of state and head of government should both be posted regardless of country and allow these close postings to occur. --M asem (t) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per 331dot and Vanamonde. This is unambigously ITN/R and we ahould not be having significance discussion here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT pneding an update + as per ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. There's a weak consensus for posting here; when in doubt, follow the rules, as IAR should only be invoked when doing so clearly benefits the encyclopedia. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pull In the midst of a dumb debate about ITNR, I don't know that anyone said this was actually ready. The "Schedule" section in particular is without citation. ghost 23:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's actually the only section I can see that is not fully cited; I hardly think it's worth pulling the article over that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jalaluddin Haqqani

 * Weak support looks mostly okay, although not sure about the fair use image rationale, just because someone's a terrorist, it doesn't mean a free image couldn't be available. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: note that they date of death is unknown - the Taliban only announced it on 3 September. I'd like to see a reference for the last two sentences in the Death section.  There are reports in the BBC and Guardian that might help - Dumelow (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support - Looks good enough for RD posting. BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Claire Wineland

 * Support No issues found. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Pearce

 * Support - have tidied up the article, all sourced. MurielMary (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support No issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Phillips (footballer)

 * Support looks fine to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and the article is good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(Removed) 2018 Kerala floods

 * Removed. --Tone 14:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Sentencing of two Reuters journalists

 * Support – in principle as a significant press freedom and human rights case – but do we want a separate article? Sca (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, the sentencing of two Reuters journalists for investigating a mass grave is an ominous sign of Myanmar sliding back into the bad old days of direct military rule, but I've not heard about their specific case until just now. Therefore, I'm not entirely convinced that this sentencing is significant enough by itself to merit a blurb on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard quite a bit of it, though. In fact, they were supposed to be sentenced about 10 days ago but the judge was ill. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I saw reasonable coverage of this before the sentencing example, so the sentencing itself should be postable. Banedon (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral on posting, but shouldn't the suggested blurb have a few more wikilinks, perhaps for Myanmar, Reuters, and Rohingya? Tlhslobus (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Extremely Weak Support Part of me really wants to put this on the main page in the form of a flashing neon sign. But once I beat down the RGW impulses I am compelled to ask, why is this act of petty tyranny more significant than any of the other crimes against a free press that occur daily all over the world? Reporters are jailed or murdered with such regularity that this is hardly a standout event. Yeah, I'm supporting. But in all honesty it's my RGW impulses rising up again. Ask me in an hour and I may change my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a high-profile case in terms of newsworthiness. Coverage I saw Monday cited evidence that Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were framed by Myanmar police with planted documents. And the horrible Rohingya saga is of great significance from a human rights perspective – particularly given Aung San Suu Kyi's previous squeaky-clean reputation. Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still neutral, but this has little or nothing to do with WP:RGW, which is entirely about not putting stuff into Wikipedia which is not supported by reliable sources, and nobody is trying to do that here. (Any other interpretation of RGW would seemingly make little sense, if only because everything in Wikipedia is supposedly there as part of an attempt to reduce ignorance and could thus be challenged on the basis that it is an attempt to right the great wrong of keeping people in ignorance (as has arguably sometimes successfully happened here in the past.)) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, in part because of what Ad Orientem said above. If we had a good-looking separate article for this situation, I would have likely voted support, however. Honestly, a flashing neon sign would be perfect... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See my above comment re WP:RGW being irrelevant here.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I opposed in part because this seems like a not particularly uncommon incident (though it is true that this one likely got more news attention than they usually do). The Right Great Wrongs guideline didn't affect my !vote at all. I simply thought about the purpose of ITN as listed on WP:ITN and think that this section does not emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource (because it is only a section). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The phrase "while investigating" implies causation without proving it. There are ways to say they were set up in a neutral voice: perhaps "UN human rights chief calls for release of..." ghost 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inclined to support because it was "in the news" (though I agree with Ad Orientem above). The "prelude" and "massacre" section both have a single (reliable) source, and both sections are thin on details -- not something that ought be featured on the MP. Whats there seems ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "getting stale" - there is stale and not stale. All but one article currently posted is older. The only reason to close earlier is if the discussion is acrimonious AND going nowhere. ghost 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that so? At a pub last week I had a sandwich on foccacia bread that was dry and getting stale, although it didn't taste spoiled. In journalism a story that is more than three days old – or even two days old – is getting stale. (This, per Ben Franklin, also is true of fish and visitors.) – Sca (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * support - I have to support this. It is an ok article about a subject featured in media world wide and is ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Like Kurtis, I haven't heard of this particular story until now. Journalists who are being killed while covering wars and drug-related violence, which happens all too often, don't usually get posted here. Let alone journalists who are sentenced to jail terms. The latter is even more common and occurs in many different parts of the world. I would've supported if the journalists themselves were notable or if their jailing sparked a diplomatic escalation between governments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. There is just about a consensus to post this, especially given the lack of stories in recent weeks. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - the update is suitable, and the story is of significance in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Conway Savage

 * Neutral Page needs better formatting, but the content and references are all there. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) National Museum of Brazil fire

 * support©Geni (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The now-redirected target article is a bit thin, but reasonably well-referenced. The prose appears to be a bit awkward in a few spots. The notability of the fire event is high, from what I’m reading. Jusdafax (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on the article about the fire being the one bold linked in the blurb and not the museum which has some gaps in referencing and has not been adequately updated. This is a cultural catastrophe of epic proportions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. José Luiz talk 03:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the event article is fully sourced and as complete as possible for a recent event. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Request Please add a image and help to improve the articles. Keep the original burb to give appropriate certification of notoriety to the context. ArionEstar (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The posted blurb is correct. Blurbs are for stating what happened, not defining the things they happened to.  We have an encyclopedia around here somewhere to do that. —Cryptic 05:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When disasters happen we try to have some quantification to say why its important (most often the death toll). Here it would be some type of monetary value but the article claims it is "invaluable". Only in consideration towards this it might be helpful to point to the "200-year old museum" (as NYTimes, BBC, and several other news sources all put that number in their headline), it gives an impression how significant this was (given that no one otherwise appeared hurt). --M asem (t) 06:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That this was the National Museum of a country is surely significant enough? Stephen 06:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you at least specify the city where the museum is located (“A fire destroys the National Museum of Brazil, in Rio de Janeiro”)? ArionEstar (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added, I noticed that too. --Tone 12:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "National Museum" doesn't necessary convey the size or importance of the collection; not all "national museums" are of equal value. But this is only a minor suggestion, nothing to argue too deeply about. --M asem (t) 14:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly been significantly damaged, but has it been 'destroyed'? Maybe reword that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was completely destroyed. See some pictures of aftermath here. José Luiz talk 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem completely destroyed, also could it be mentioned that the firefighters were tasked with rescuing artefacts before/during putting the fire out (especially because it was deemed uncontrollable)? It's seems like an interesting fact, or should that be put on DYK? (1 2) Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If an article has been on the main page in ITN, it is no longer eligible for DYK per WP:DYKRULES #1d. Regards So  Why  07:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 All-Ireland Football Final

 * Oppose well, per nom, we have no real summary of the final. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - I have done my best to write one. Is that passable? Stormy clouds (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Seems okay to me, though the Tyrone All-Ireland Semi-Final is missing a "Report" link and the detail on scorers as the other games have. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - issues outlined have been rectified. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Lariba

 * Weak support per nom. Could be expanded, but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Sufficient for main page, sourced appropriately. MurielMary (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Asian Games closing

 * Weak support this (I think) is the third time this event has been nominated here. My reservation in this instance comes from the lack of "in the news" I'm seeing.  The article seems okay, and I'm certain there are hundreds of millions of Wikipedia readers who are aware of and interested in this, but ... it's just not ITN.  But still, support weakly.  And bonus points to the nominator for perseverance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fully agree that this is not the type of thing for ongoing, but as we do have for ITNR the opening of the Commonwealth games, I see no reason not to post a similarly Olympic-stylized multi-national event elsewhere as a one-time blurb (not ongoing). --M asem (t) 17:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment 2018 Asian Games closing ceremony should not be linked in the blurb in its current state. It was originally entirely unsourced, and though I've added one reference now, it is still not ready to be on the main page. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If we go in line with the Olympics, we never post the medal tally in the blurb. So I don't think we should here either. --Tone 19:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that right? My memory fails.  I'm sure I've seen blurbs for multi-sport contests where we note who topped the medal table, not the tally, just who topped out.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, maybe if the target article is the closing ceremony we don't focus on the "winning" country, but if we're not mentioning that because the article is too lame, I don't think I see too much harm in noting the top of the leaderboard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the world's largest sporting event save for the olympics. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see anything special about the 2018 Asian Games as opposed to other Asian Games, so it's either notable enough for ITN/R or there is no reason why this particular one should be posted. I'm not opposed to this posting, just saying that if you support this posting you should probably propose to add it to ITN/R. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)